Skip to main content

Full text of "Corruption in professional boxing : hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, second session"

See other formats


S.  Hrg.  103-184 

CORRUPTION  IN  PROFESSIONAL  BOXING— Part  II 


M.G  74/9:  S.  HRG.  103-184 

Corruption  in  Professional  Hoxing-P.. 


ARINGS 


BEFORE  THE 

PERMANENT 
SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS 

OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON 
GOVERNMENTAL  AFFAIRS 
UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

ONE  HUNDRED  THIRD  CONGRESS 

FIRST  SESSION 


MARCH  10  AND  APRIL  1,  1993 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  Governmental  Affairs 


U.S.   GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE 
65_875±_  WASHINGTON    :  1993 


For  sale  by  the  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 
Superintendent  of  Documents,  Congressional  Sales  Office.  Washington,  DC  20402 
ISBN    0-16-041441-5 


S.  Hrg.  103-184 

CORRUPTION  IN  PROFESSIONAL  BOXING— Part  II 

4.  G  74/9:  S.  HRG.  103-184 

rruptiot  in  Professional  Boxing-P 

n^ARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

PERMANENT 
SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS 

OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON 
GOVERNMENTAL  AFFAIRS 
UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

ONE  HUNDRED  THIRD  CONGRESS 

FIRST  SESSION 


MARCH  10  AND  APRIL  1,  1993 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  Governmental  Affairs 


WV  2g 


U.S.   GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE 
65-875^  WASHINGTON    :  1993 


For  sale  by  the  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 
Superintendent  of  Documents,  Congressional  Sales  Office,  Washington,  DC  20402 
ISBN   0-16-041441-5 


COMMITTEE  ON  GOVERNMENTAL  AFFAIRS 

JOHN  GLENN,  Ohio,  Chairman 
SAM  NUNN,  Georgia  WILLIAM  V.  ROTH,  Jr.,  Delaware 

CARL  LEVIN,  Michigan  TED  STEVENS,  Alaska 

JIM  SASSER,  Tennessee  WILLIAM  S.  COHEN,  Maine 

DAVID  PRYOR,  Arkansas  THAD  COCHRAN,  Mississippi 

JOSEPH  I.  LIEBERMAN,  Connecticut  JOHN  McCAIN,  Arizona 

DANIEL  K.  AKAKA,  Hawaii 
BYRON  L.  DORGAN,  North  Dakota 

Leonard  Weiss,  Staff  Director 

Franklin  G.  Polk,  Minority  Staff  Director  and  Chief  Counsel 

Michal  Sue  Prosser,  Chief  Clerk 


PERMANENT  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS 

SAM  NUNN,  Georgia,  Chairman 
JOHN  GLENN,  Ohio,  Vice  Chairman 
CARL  LEVIN,  Michigan  WILLIAM  V.  ROTH,  Jr.,  Delaware 

JIM  SASSER,  Tennessee  TED  STEVENS,  Alaska 

DAVID  PRYOR,  Arkansas  WILLIAM  S.  COHEN,  Maine 

JOSEPH  I.  LIEBERMAN,  Connecticut  THAD  COCHRAN,  Mississippi 

BYRON  L.  DORGAN,  North  Dakota  JOHN  McCAIN,  Arizona 

Eleanore  Hill,  Chief  Counsel 

Daniel  F.  Rinzel,  Chief  Counsel  to  the  Minority 

Mary  D.  Robertson,  Chief  Clerk 

(II) 


\f\       /  [ERRATA] 

\\A  '  S.  Hrg.  103-184 

V     CORRUPTION  IN  PROFESSIONAL  BOXING— Part  II 

V  4.G  74/9:  S.  HRG.  103-184/ 
5T.  2/ERRATA 

:orruptio§  in  Professional  Boxincj-P. 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

PERMANENT 
SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS 

OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON 
GOVERNMENTAL  AFFAIRS 
UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

ONE  HUNDRED  THIRD  CONGRESS 

FIRST  SESSION 


MARCH  10  AND  APRIL  1,  1993 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  Governmental  Affairs 


DEC  2     893 


U.S.   GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE 
65-875  £5  WASHINGTON    :  1993 

For  sale  by  the  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 
Superintendent  of  Documents.  Congressional  Sales  Office.  Washington.  DC  20402 
ISBN   0-16-041441-5 


[ERRATA] 

Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing— Part  II 

The  above  referenced  hearing  before  the  Senate  Committee  on 
abor,  was  inadvertently  printed  with  the  incorrect  publication 
amber  of  S.  HRG.  103-184. 
The  correct  designation  is  S.  HRG.  103-184,  Part  II. 


CONTENTS 


Opening  statements:  Page 

Senator  Nunn 1,  69 

Senator  Roth 2,  70 

Senator  Cohen 4 

Senator  Dorgan 5 

Senator  McCain 6 

Senator  Cochran 60 

Prepared  Statements: 

Senator  McCain 72 

Senator  Dorgan 73 

WITNESSES 

Wednesday,  March  10,  1993 

Hon.  Bill  Richardson,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  New 

Mexico 7 

Stephen  Levin,  Minority  Staff  Counsel;  accompanied  by  W.  Leighton  Lord  III, 
Minority  Staff  Counsel,  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations,  Com- 
mittee on  Governmental  Affairs,  U.S.  Senate 16 

Dr.  Barry  Jordan,  Assistant  Professor  of  Neurology  and  Public  Health,  Cor- 
nell University  Medical  College;  Medical  Director,  New  York  State  Athletic 
Commission;  and  Team  Physician,  U.S.A.  Amateur  Boxing  Federation 39 

Dr.  Jack  E.  Battalia,  Chairman,  Oregon  Boxing  Commission,  and  Chairman, 
International  Boxing  Federation  Medical  Commission 40 

Dr.  Timothy  W.  Ward,  Chairman,  Medical  Advisory  Board,  Pennsylvania 
State  Athletic  Commission 42 

Seth  G.  Abraham,  President,  Time-Warner  Sports  (HBO) 56 

Michael  L.  Aresco,  Program  Manager,  ESPN,  Inc 63 

Thursday,  April  1,  1993 

Salvatore  "Sammy  the  Bull"  Gravano,  Former  Underboss,  Gambino  Orga- 
nized Crime  Family,  accompanied  by  John  Gleeson,  Assistant  U.S.  Attor- 
ney, Brooklyn,  New  York 75 

W.  Leighton  Lord,  III,  Minority  Staff  Counsel;  accompanied  by  Stephen  Levin, 
Minority  Staff  Counsel,  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations,  Com- 
mittee on  Governmental  Affairs,  U.S.  Senate 90 

Alfred  Certissimo  and  James  "Buddy"  McGirt,  Former  WBC  Welterweight 
Champion,  accompanied  by  Michael  D'Chiara  and  Dino  D'BliaBlias,  Coun- 
sel; and  Stuart  Weiner,  accompanied  by  Edwin  Schulman,  Counsel 110 

Edward  Sciandra 131 

Robert  Goodman,  Vice  President,  Madison  Square  Garden  Boxing,  accompa- 
nied by  Ken  Munos,  Madison  Square  Garden  General  Counsel 132 

Mark  Tuohey,  Attorney  for  Iran  Barkley,  Reed,  Smith,  Shaw  and  McClay 141 

Leonard  Minuto,  accompanied  by  Gerard  Treanor  and  Preston  Burton,  Ca- 
cheris  and  Treanor,  Washington,  D.C.,  Counsel 143 

Andrew  Licari,  accompanied  by  Richard  A.   Rafanello,   Shain,  Schaffer  & 

Rafanello,  Bernardsville,  New  Jersey,  Counsel 144 

(in) 


IV 

Page 

Alphabetical  List  of  Witnesses 

Abraham,  Seth  G.: 

Testimony 56 

Prepared  Statement 153 

Aresco,  Michael  L.: 

Testimony 63 

Prepared  Statement 155 

Battalia,  (Dr.)  Jack  E.: 

Testimony 40 

Prepared  Statement 150 

Certissimo,  Alfred: 

Testimony 110 

Goodman,  Robert: 

Testimony 132 

Prepared  Statement 158 

Gravano,  Salvatore  "Sammy  the  Bull": 

Testimony 75 

Prepared  Statement 156 

Jordan,  (Dr.)  Barry: 

Testimony 39 

Prepared  Statement 149 

Levin,  Stephen: 

Testimony 16,  90 

Prepared  Statement 22,  95 

Licari,  Andrew: 

Testimony 144 

Prepared  Statement 160 

Lord,  W.  Leighton,  III: 

Testimony 16,  90 

Prepared  Statement 22,  95 

McGirt,  James  "Buddy": 

Testimony 110 

Minuto,  Leonard: 

Testimony .". 143 

Richardson,  (Hon.)  Bill: 

Testimony 7 

Prepared  Statement 9 

Sciandra,  Edward: 

Testimony 131 

Tuohey,  Mark: 

Testimony 141 

Ward,  (Dr.)  Timothy  W.: 

Testimony 42 

Prepared  Statement 151 

Weiner,  Stuart: 

Testimony 110 

APPENDIX 

Prepared  statements  of  witnesses  in  order  of  appearance 149 


EXHIBIT  LIST 

Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing:  Part  II 

March  10,  and  April  1,  1993 

Page 

1.  Chart,  Organized  Crime  Involvement  in  Professional  Boxing,  prepared  by 

the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations  (PSD 163 

2.  Memorandum  in  support  of  Chart,  Organized  Crime  Involvement  in  Pro- 

fessional Boxing  (SEALED) , 

3.  Criminal  records  and  other  information  in  support  of  Chart,  Organized 

Crime  Involvement  in  Professional  Boxing  (SEALED) 

4.  Chart,  Flow  of  Funds — James  "Buddy"  McGirt  vs.  Simon  Brown,  Las 

Vegas,  Nevada,  November  29,  1991,  prepared  by  PSI 164 

5.  Chart,  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.,  Check  Nos.  1289  and  1291,  dated  March  31, 

1990 165 

6.  Chart,  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.,  Check  No.  1841,  dated  November  29,  1991...      166 

7.  Surveillance   videotape    of  Salvatore   Gravano,    Edward    Sciandra,    and 

Joseph  Corozzo 

8.  Still  photographs  of  Salvatore  Gravano,  Edward  Sciandra  and  Joseph 

Corozzo  from  videotape 167 

9.  Joint  Deposition  of  Thaddeus  E.  Watley  and  Richard  Robinson,  November 

24   1992 * 

10.  Deposition  of  How^  

11.  Deposition  of  Elias  Ghanem,  M.D.,  February  5,  1993 

12.  Deposition  of  Alfred  Felix  Certissimo,  December  1,  1992 

13.  Deposition  of  James  W.  McGirt,  II,  December  1,  1992 

14.  Deposition  of  Joseph  Corozzo,  Sr.,  December  14,  1992 

15.  Deposition  of  Iran  Barkley,  April  30,  1993 168 

16.  Deposition  of  Stanley  Leonard  Hoffman,  January  14,  1993 

17.  Deposition  of  Iran  Barkley,  December  16,  1992 

18.  Letter  dated  September  28,  1992  from  Congressman  Kildee  to  Senator 

Nunn  regarding  Mr.  Michael  Suski  and  his  career  as  a  professional 
boxer.  Attached  contract  prepared  by  Jackie  Kallen 

19.  Letter  dated  November  18,  1992,  from  New  Jersey  Deputy  Attorney  Gen- 

eral George  Rover  to  Leighton  Lord  regarding  Ricky  Stackhouse  fight 
on  September  11,  1992,  held  at  Trump  Plaza,  New  Jersey 

20.  Letter  dated  March  26,  1993,  to  Stephen  H.  Levin  from  Louis  J.  DiBella, 

Vice   President,   General   Counsel   and   Chief  Administrative   Officer, 
Time  Warner  Sports 252 

21.  Correspondence  from  Colleen  Patchin  to  Stephen  H.  Levin  dated  Novem- 

ber 19,  1992  enclosing  requested  documents: 

a.  Nevada    Athletic    Commission    Articles    of   Agreement    for    Cesford 
"Simon"  Brown  and  James  "Buddy"  McGirt 252 

b.  Signed  sheet  indicating  fighters  received  a  check  for  fighting 253 

c.  Request  from  James  "Buddy"  McGirt  to  have  his  check  made  payable 

to  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc 254 

d.  Nevada  license  application  for  Stuart  Weiner,  dated  November  22,  1991 

22.  Official  Nevada  Athletic  Commission  Boxing  Contract  between  James 

Toney  and  Iran  Barkley,  dated  February  3,  1993 

23.  Letter  to  Stephen  Levin  from  George  N.  Rover,  dated  March  3,  1993,  with 

attachments: 

a.  Application  for  a  license  to  manage/second  of  Leonard  Minuto,  Jr.  to 
State  of  New  Jersey  Athletic  Control  Board,  dated  June  1,  1989 

b.  Application  for  a  license  to  manage/second  of  Leonard  Minuto,  Jr.  to 
State  of  New  Jersey  Athletic  Control  Board,  dated  July  28,  1989 

24.  Letter  from  Robert  M.  Gutkowski,  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer 

of  Madison  Square  Garden,  to  Senator  William  V.  Roth,  Jr.,  dated 
March  17,  1993 

(v) 


VI 

Page 

25.  Letter  from  Richard  A.  Rafanello  to  W.  Leighton  Lord  III  re:  Andrew 

Licari,  dated  March  29,  1993 

26.  Letter  from  Murray  Richman  to  Stephen  Levin  re:  Salvatore  Pascale  and 

Renaldo  Snipes,  dated  March  29,  1993 

27.  State  Boxing  Regulations  of  Alaska,  California,  Delaware,  Georgia,  Illi- 

nois, Iowa,  Maine,  Maryland,  Montana,  Nebraska,  Nevada,  New  Jersey, 
New  York  and  Texas 

28.  Report — Compilation  of  State  Boxing  Laws  and  Regulations,  prepared  by 

the  Congressional  Research  Service  of  the  Library  of  Congress 

29.  State  of  New  Jersey  Commission  on  Investigation,  Executive   Session 

Testimony  of  Andrew  Liccari,  March  26,  1985.  (SEALED) ..... 

30.  State  of  New  Jersey  Commission   on   Investigation,   Executive  Session 

Testimony  of  Andrew  Dembrowski,  March  26,  1985.  (SEALED) 

31.  Affirmation  of  Alfonse  D'Arco,  In  Re  The  Matter  of:  Corruption  in  Profes- 

sional Boxing,  March  12,  1993 255 

32.  FBI  memorandum  regarding  John  Joseph  Conti  and  LCN  infiltration  into 

the  boxing  industry,  dated  November  4,  1992.  (SEALED) * 

33.  Letter  from  Carl  Moretti  to  Mr.  Steve  Levin,  dated  December  2,  1992, 

with  attachments: 

a.  Check  from  Madison  Square  Garden  Corporation  to  Alfred  Certissimo, 
Inc.,  dated  July  2,  1991,  for  $50,000 

b.  Check  from  Madison  Square  Garden  Corporation  to  Alfred  Certissimo, 
Inc.,  dated  October  16,  1991,  for  $25,000 

c.  Check  from  Madison  Square  Garden  to  World  Boxing  Council,  dated 
November  26,  1991,  for  $18,750 

d.  Check  from  Madison  Square  Garden  Corporation  to  Alfred  Certissimo, 
Inc.,  dated  November  27,  1991,  for  $566,250 

e.  Check  from  Madison  Square  Garden  Corporation  to  Alfred  Certissimo, 

Inc.,  dated  November  27,  1991,  for  $40,000 256 

f.  Check  from  Madison  Square  Garden  Corporation  to  Alfred  Certissimo, 
Inc.,  dated  February  20,  1992,  for  $25,000 

g.  Check  from  Madison  Square  Garden  Corporation  to  Alfred  Certissimo, 
Inc.,  dated  March  13,  1992,  for  $25,000 

h.   Check    #505344,   marked   "void,"   from   Madison   Square  Garden   to 

Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.,  dated  November  27,  1991,  for  $40,000 257 

i.  Memorandum  (undated)  from  Robert  Goodman  to  Al  Certo  regarding  a 
$40,000  payment  to  Stu  Weiner 258 

34.  Copy  of  Contract  between   Madison  Square  Garden  Boxing,  Inc.,  and 

James  "Buddy"  McGirt,  dated  December  12,  1990 

35.  Contract   between    Madison    Square    Garden    Boxing,    Inc.,    and   James 

"Buddy"  McGirt,  dated  March  5,  1991 

36.  Contract  between  Madison  Square  Garden  Boxing,  Inc.,  and  Don  King 

Productions,  Inc.,  dated  June  1991 

37.  Copy  of  promotional  fee  agreement  between  James  "Buddy"  McGirt  and 

Madison  Square  Garden  Boxing,  dated  November  26,  1991 

38.  WBC  Welterweight  Championship  Bout  Agreement  with  Options,  dated 

November  26,  1991,  signed  by  Bob  Goodman,  James  "Buddy"  McGirt, 

and  Al  Certo 259 

39.  Application  for  Manager's  License  by  Marco  Minuto  to  New  York  State 

Athletic  Commission,  dated  October  5,  1977 

40.  Application  for  License  to  Manage/ Second  by  Stuart  Weiner  to  New 

Jersey  State  Athletic  Control  Board,  dated  July  2,  1988 

41.  Copy  of  Application  for  Second  License  by  Alfred  Certissimo  to  State 

Athletic  Commission  of  Nevada,  dated  November  20,  1991 

42.  Copy  of  License  Application  by  Iran  Barkley  to  the  Nevada  State  Athletic 

Commission,  dated  March  13,  1992 

43.  Article,  "No  Escaping  Blame,"  Wallace  Matthews,  Newsdav,  March  11, 

1993 

44.  General  Accounting  Office  analysis  of  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc 

45.  Report,  "Administration  of  Boxing:  History  and  Regulatory  Issues,"  Gary 

L.  Galemore,  Library  of  Congress,  Congressional  Research  Service,  Gov- 
ernment Division,  September  18,  1985 

46.  Article,  "Fists  Full  of  Dollars,"  Richard  Hoffer,  Sports  Illustrated,  Janu- 

ary 15,  1990,  p.  94 

47.  Deposition  of  Andrew  L.  Licari,  March  25,  1993 

48.  Still  photograph  of  Edward  Sciandra  with  Nicodemo  Scarfo  and  Joseph 

Todaro 265 


Page 


4Q    rnrresoondence  from   Bruce   Anderson,   Oregon   Boxing   and   Wrestling 
49"  ^Commrssfonto  Steve  Levin  dated  May  4,  ^f^Z^uSTl^ 

PSI  Hearings,  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  ana  it,      ^ 

SO.D^ti^  

*  Can  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee 


CORRUPTION  IN  PROFESSIONAL  BOXING 

Part  II 


WEDNESDAY,  MARCH  10,  1993 

U.S.  Senate, 
Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations, 
of  the  Committee  on  Governmental  Affairs, 

Washington,  DC. 

The  Subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  notice,  at  9:37  a.m.,  in  room 
SD-342  Dirksen  Senate  Office  Building,  Hon.  Sam  Nunn,  Chair- 
man of  the  Subcommittee,  presiding. 

Present:  Senators  Nunn,  Roth,  Dorgan,  Cohen,  Cochran,  and 
McCain. 

Staff  Present:  Eleanore  J.  Hill,  Chief  Counsel;  Mary  D.  Robert- 
son, Chief  Clerk;  Harold  B.  Lippman,  Investigator;  Cynthia  Corn- 
stock,  Executive  Assistant  to  Chief  Counsel;  Daniel  F.  Rinzel,  Mi- 
nority Chief  Counsel;  Stephen  H.  Levin,  Minority  Counsel;  Mary  E. 
Michels,  Minority  Counsel;  W.  Leighton  Lord  III,  Minority  Counsel; 
Scott  Orchard,  Minority  Investigator;  Sallie  B.  Cribbs,  Minority  Ex- 
ecutive Assistant  to  the  Chief  Counsel;  Carla  J.  Martin,  Minority 
Assistant  Chief  Clerk;  Dale  Cabaniss,  Senator  Stevens;  Jennifer 
Urff;  Senator  Dorgan;  Gene  Harrington,  Senator  Dorgan;  Paul  Bru- 
baker,  Senator  Cohen;  Matt  Frost,  Senator  Cohen;  Grant  Fox,  Sen- 
ator Cochran;  and  Paul  Feeney,  Senator  McCain. 

OPENING  STATEMENT  OF  SENATOR  NUNN 

Senator  Nunn.  The  Subcommittee  will  come  to  order. 

This  morning,  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations 
continues  our  examination  of  regulatory  problems  and  health  and 
safety  in  professional  boxing.  The  hearings  today  and  those  sched- 
uled for  later  this  month  build  on  the  hearings  held  last  August, 
which  resulted  from  an  investigation  initiated  by  the  Subcommit- 
tee's ranking  minority  member,  Senator  Roth,  and  his  staff. 

In  August,  professional  boxers,  State  boxing  commissioners, 
boxing  experts,  and  other  boxing  industry  representatives  offered 
testimony  that  raised  questions  about  the  role  of  State  regulatory 
agencies  and  sanctioning  bodies  in  protecting  the  interests  of  pro- 
fessional boxers.  Since  the  August  hearing,  Senator  Roth  and  his 
staff  have  been  following  up  on  the  testimony  presented  at  that 
time. 

In  today's  hearings,  we  will  be  receiving  additional  testimony  on 
health,  safety,  and  other  related  issues.  I  believe  that  today's  testi- 
mony will  focus  on  alleged  weaknesses  and  loopholes  within  profes- 

(l) 


sional  boxing's  regulatory  structures  and  national  governing 
bodies. 

We  will  hear  first  from  Representative  Bill  Richardson  of  New 
Mexico.  Bill,  we  are  delighted  to  have  you  here  this  morning.  For 
many  years,  Congressman  Richardson  has  strongly  favored  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  Federal  entity  to  regulate  and  oversee  profession- 
al boxing  in  our  country. 

Following  his  testimony,  the  minority  staff  will  present  a  sum- 
mary of  the  findings  arising  from  their  most  recent  work. 

Following  them  will  be  a  panel  of  medical  experts  who  will  dis- 
cuss various  health  and  safety  issues  such  as  injuries  experienced 
by  boxers  and  reforms  that  may  help  prevent  these  injuries. 

Finally,  we  will  hear  from  two  cable  television  network  execu- 
tives who  will  discuss  the  nature  of  their  industry's  involvement  in 
professional  boxing. 

As  I  have  so  many  times  in  the  past,  I  again  thank  and  commend 
Senator  Roth  and  his  staff  for  their  hard,  diligent  work. 

Professional  boxing  has  long  been  a  means  for  easily  exploiting 
disadvantaged  youth  to  try  to  escape  their  otherwise  limited  cir- 
cumstances. As  such,  it  is  important  that  the  industry  and  its  regu- 
lators recognize  the  need  to  maintain  appropriate  health  and  safety 
standards  to  protect  those  young  men  who  are  drawn  to  the  sport 
as  a  means  to  achieve  fame  and  fortune. 

With  that  in  mind,  I  look  forward  to  today's  testimony  and  I  am 
turning  the  gavel  over  to  Senator  Roth,  who  will  conduct  the  hear- 
ing. 

OPENING  STATEMENT  OF  SENATOR  ROTH 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  want  to  express  my 
appreciation  for  your  cooperation  and  that  of  your  staff. 

Our  previous  hearings  revealed,  as  you  mentioned,  gaps  in  box- 
ing's regulatory  structure  that  threaten  the  very  foundation  of  the 
sport.  Boxing  regulators  from  several  States  testified  that  if  boxing 
is  not  cleaned  up,  it  is  in  danger  of  driving  itself  out  of  existence. 

We  have  learned  that  boxers  are  frequently  exploited  financially, 
that  they  have  little  power  to  protect  their  own  interests.  The  fi- 
nancial power  in  boxing  is  overwhelmingly  tilted  towards  promot- 
ers, managers,  and  those  who  pay  the  freight  for  the  big  fights, 
usually  television. 

The  State  regulatory  agencies,  the  athletic  commissions,  or  the 
boxing  commissioners  are  supposed  to  stand  between  the  boxer  and 
the  people  with  the  financial  power  in  order  to  protect  the  boxers. 
We  heard  testimony  last  August,  and  we  will  hear  more  today, 
about  how  even  the  most  well-intentioned  State  regulators  find 
their  rules  easily  evaded. 

For  example,  Nevada  has  a  rule  against  option  contracts  which 
tie  boxers  to  a  particular  promoter  for  multiple  fights.  Promoters 
routinely  evade  that  regulation  even  for  fights  held  in  Nevada  by 
having  multiple  contracts  for  the  same  fight,  a  Nevada  contract 
with  no  options  and  another  real  contract  which  includes  options. 
Whatever  one's  opinion  about  the  fairness  of  option  contracts,  the 
fact  is  that  the  Nevada  regulation  has  little  effect. 


State  regulators  are  supposed  to  protect  the  health  and  safety  of 
boxers.  How  well  is  that  function  being  performed?  We  heard  testi- 
mony last  August  from  the  New  York  Boxing  Commissioner  about 
a  boxer  named  Ricky  Stackhouse.  Stackhouse  was  banned  from 
boxing  in  New  York  because  he  was  considered  as  no  longer  having 
the  ability  to  adequately  defend  himself.  Stackhouse  was  also 
banned  in  Florida  for  the  same  reason,  but  nevertheless  was  subse- 
quently allowed  to  fight  in  Detroit,  Michigan,  not  just  against  any 
fighter,  but  against  IBF  middleweight  champion  James  Toney,  and, 
predictably,  Stackhouse  was  knocked  out  in  the  third  round  of  the 
fight. 

The  New  York  Commissioner  testified  as  to  the  travesty  of  a  reg- 
ulatory system  that  would  allow  this  boxer  to  continue  to  box  any- 
where. Seated  next  to  the  New  York  Commissioner  when  he  testi- 
fied here  in  August  was  the  New  Jersey  Boxing  Commissioner.  And 
where  did  Ricky  Stackhouse  next  appear  in  the  ring?  In  Atlantic 
City,  New  Jersey,  4  months  after  our  August  hearing,  where  he 
was  knocked  out  again  in  the  third  round.  Well,  so  much  for  health 
and  safety. 

Under  boxing's  current  regulatory  structure,  young  boxers  like 
Dave  Tiberi  from  Delaware  are  denied  victories  they  win  in  the 
ring,  organized  crime  figures  are  allowed  to  assert  influence  in  the 
boxing  business,  and  the  health  and  the  safety  of  boxers  is  not  pro- 
tected as  it  should  be. 

Boxing  has,  for  decades,  provided  opportunity  to  young  men, 
many  of  whom  are  underprivileged,  to  advance  themselves.  These 
young  men  deserve  much  better  assurance  that  their  health  and 
safety,  as  well  as  their  financial  earnings,  will  be  better  protected 
than  under  the  current  inadequate  regulatory  system. 

Today  we  will  hear  important  testimony  about  health  and  safety 
issues  from  several  respected  and  knowledgeable  physicians.  In  ad- 
dition, we  will  hear  testimony  from  HBO  Sports  and  ESPN,  the 
cable  sports  channel.  HBO  arguably  plays  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant roles  in  the  business  of  boxing  today.  ESPN  broadcasts  more 
boxing  shows  than  any  other  entity. 

We  hope  to  hear  at  a  later  date  about  the  current  influence  of 
organized  crime  in  professional  boxing. 

Again,  I  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  your  leadership  and  sup- 
port. 

Prepared  Statement  of  Senator  Roth 

In  August  of  last  year,  this  Subcommittee  held  2  days  of  hearings  on  the  profes- 
sional boxing  industry.  As  we  continue  our  investigation  today  and  in  the  future,  I 
want  to  commend  Senator  Nunn  for  his  leadership  in  pursuing  this  important  inves- 
tigation, and  I  want  to  thank  his  staff  for  their  support. 

Our  previous  hearings  revealed  gaps  in  boxing's  regulatory  structure  that  threat- 
en the  very  foundation  of  the  sport.  Boxing  regulators  from  several  States  testified 
that  if  boxing  is  not  cleaned  up,  it  is  in  danger  of  driving  itself  out  of  existence. 

We  learned  that  boxers  are  frequently  exploited  financially,  and  that  they  have 
little  power  to  protect  their  own  interests.  The  financial  power  in  boxing  is  over- 
whelmingly tilted  towards  promoters,  managers  and  those  who  pay  the  freight  for 
the  big  fights,  usually  television. 

The  State  regulatory  agencies,  the  athletic  commissions,  or  the  boxing  commis- 
sioners, are  supposed  to  stand  between  the  boxer  and  the  people  with  the  financial 
power  in  order  to  protect  the  boxers.  But  we  heard  testimony  last  August,  and  we 
will  hear  more  today,  about  how  even  the  most  well  intentioned  State  regulators 
find  their  rules  easily  evaded.  For  example,  Nevada  has  a  rule  against  option  con- 


tracts  which  tie  boxers  to  a  particular  promoter  for  multiple  fights.  Promoters  rou- 
tinely evade  that  regulation  even  for  fights  held  in  Nevada  by  having  multiple  con- 
tracts for  the  same  fight — a  Nevada  contract  with  no  options  and  another  "real" 
contract  which  includes  options.  Whatever  one's  opinion  about  the  fairness  of  option 
contracts,  the  fact  is  that  the  Nevada  regulation  has  little  effect. 

State  regulators  are  supposed  to  protect  the  health  and  safety  of  boxers.  How  well 
is  that  function  being  performed?  We  heard  testimony  last  August  from  the  New 
York  Boxing  Commissioner  about  a  boxer  named  Ricky  Stackhouse.  Stackhouse  was 
banned  from  boxing  in  New  York  because  he  was  considered  as  no  longer  having 
the  ability  to  adequately  defend  himself.  Stackhouse  was  also  banned  in  Florida  for 
the  same  reason,  but  nevertheless  was  subsequently  allowed  to  fight  in  Detroit, 
Michigan — not  just  against  any  fighter,  but  against  IBF  middleweight  champion 
James  Toney.  Predictably,  Stackhouse  was  knocked  out  in  the  3rd  round  of  the 
fight. 

The  New  York  Commissioner  testified  as  to  the  travesty  of  a  regulatory  system 
that  would  allow  this  boxer  to  continue  to  box  anywhere.  Seated  next  to  the  New 
York  Commissioner  when  he  testified  here  in  August  was  the  New  Jersey  Boxing 
Commissioner.  And  where  did  Ricky  Stackhouse  next  appear  in  the  ring?  In  Atlan- 
tic City,  New  Jersey,  4  months  after  our  August  hearing,  where  he  was  knocked  out 
again  in  the  3rd  round.  So  much  for  health  and  safety. 

Under  boxing's  current  regulatory  structure,  young  boxers  like  Dave  Tiberi  from 
Delaware  are  denied  victories  they  win  in  the  ring,  organized  crime  figures  are  al- 
lowed to  assert  influence  in  the  boxing  business,  and  the  health  and  safety  of  boxers 
is  not  protected. 

Boxing  has,  for  decades,  provided  opportunity  to  young  men,  many  of  whom  are 
underprivileged,  to  advance  themselves.  These  young  men,  however,  deserve  much 
better  assurance  that  their  health  and  safety  as  well  as  their  financial  earnings  will 
be  better  protected  than  under  the  current  inadequate  regulatory  system. 

Today  we  will  hear  important  testimony  about  health  and  safety  issues  from  sev- 
eral respected  and  knowledgeable  physicians.  In  addition,  we  will  hear  testimony 
from  representatives  of  HBO  Sports  and  ESPN,  the  cable  sports  channel.  HBO  argu- 
ably plays  one  of  the  most  important  roles  in  the  business  of  boxing  today.  ESPN 
broadcasts  more  boxing  shows  than  any  other  entity. 

We  hope  to  hear  further  testimony  at  a  later  date  about  the  current  influence  of 
organized  crime  in  professional  boxing. 

Again,  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  your  leadership  and  support. 

Senator  Nunn.  Thank  you,  Senator  Roth. 

I  believe  that  Congressman  Richardson  is  the  first  witness  to 
appear  this  morning. 

Senator  Roth.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Nunn.  Senator  Cohen,  do  you  have  a  statement? 

OPENING  STATEMENT  OF  SENATOR  COHEN 

Senator  Cohen.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  be  very  brief.  I  have  a  brief 
statement  I  would  like  to  insert  in  the  record  and  will  just  offer  a 
couple  of  comments. 

This  is  a  continuation,  as  both,  you  and  Senator  Roth  have  indi- 
cated, of  hearings  that  began  last  fall.  What  is  striking  to  me  is  the 
fact  that  no  action  whatsoever  has  been  taken  by  the  boxing  com- 
munity in  the  wake  of  those  initial  hearings.  Ordinarily,  when  a 
Senate  hearing  or  investigation  is  undertaken,  at  least  most  indus- 
tries make  some  symbolic  steps  toward  reform  in  order  to  stave  off 
what  otherwise  might  be  some  far-reaching  Federal  regulation. 

In  this  particular  case,  the  boxing  community  has  done  nothing. 
They  have  simply  decided  to  place  intransigence  over  intelligence.  I 
would  simply  say  to  the  boxing  community  that  boxing  is  going  to 
have  to  change  if  it  is  going  to  survive.  Those  who  are  in  positions 
to  make  these  decisions  ought  to  be  taking  some  steps  right  now  in 
order  to  provide  for  uniform  rules  and  testings  and  oversight,  if 


they  are  going  to  avoid  having  the  Congress  impose  some  far-reach- 
ing measures. 

I  hope  that  we  will  continue  this  effort  to  look  into  the  inadequa- 
cies of  the  state-regulated  boxing  provisions,  the  inadequacies  of 
medical  oversight,  and  the  lack  of  oversight  of  those  who  are  really 
responsible  for  organizing  and  promoting  boxing. 

Prepared  Statement  of  Senator  Cohen 

I  would  like  to  thank  the  Chairman  and  Senator  Roth  for  holding  this  hearing  to 
examine  the  regulation  of  professional  boxing. 

Last  August,  this  Subcommittee  began  its  investigation  of  corruption  in  profes- 
sional boxing  with  2  days  of  hearings  into  fight  fixing  and  the  influence  of  organized 
crime.  Today  we  will  pick  up  where  we  left  off  and  explore  some  of  the  important 
issues  that  we  touched  on  last  year.  We  will  inquire  into  the  deficiencies  of  the  cur- 
rent state-regulated  boxing  system,  the  inadequate  medical  oversight  of  boxing,  and 
the  licensing  of  those  who  wield  the  power  in  boxing. 

Boxing  must  change  if  it  is  to  survive.  Boxing  supporters  have  always  parried  the 
charge  that  boxing  is  a  brutal,  atavistic  sport  with  the  reply  that  boxing  offers  an 
avenue  of  escape  for  underprivileged  young  men  willing  to  sweat  and  bleed  for  a 
better  life.  This  romantic,  rags-to-riches  picture  is  increasingly  overshadowed  by  the 
seamier  snapshots  of  boxing — of  Duk  Koo  Kim  lying  dead  of  a  brain  injury;  of 
throngs  of  advisors,  promoters,  and  managers  picking  the  pockets  of  naive  young 
boxers;  of  talented  boxers  cast  by  the  wayside  because,  though  they  can  pack  a 
punch,  they  can't  pack  a  crowd. 

Unfortunately,  the  boxing  community  seems  to  be  a  little  slow  on  the  uptake.  In 
the  wake  of  a  Senate  hearing,  other  industries  would  have  made  at  least  some  sym- 
bolic effort  at  reform.  The  boxing  community,  however,  has  unwisely  decided  to  put 
intransigence  before  intelligence,  and  has  taken  no  serious  steps  towards  self-im- 
provement. 

I  believe  that  it  is  vital  that  the  boxing  community  move  to  assure  boxing  critics 
and  fans  alike  that  it  has  the  best  interests  of  young  fighters  in  mind.  I  hope  never 
again  to  have  to  hear  stories  of  punch-dulled  fighters,  shuffling  from  state  to  state 
to  escape  lifetime  bans  and  make  a  few  hundred  bucks.  If  the  powers  that  be  in 
boxing  hope  to  forestall  Federal  regulation  in  this  arena,  I  would  strongly  suggest 
that  they  begin  to  work  together  to  develop  uniform  standards  for  boxing  and  a  cen- 
tral database  to  contain  fighter  information. 

I  believe  that  this  hearing  offers  a  sterling  opportunity  to  diagnose  the  ailments 
afflicting  the  current  state-regulated  boxing  system  and  to  explore  possible  cures  for 
these  maladies.  I  also  hope  that  it  may  provide  the  platform  for  any  necessary  legis- 
lative prescription  for  change. 

Senator  Nunn.  Thank  you  very  much,  Senator  Cohen. 

We  are  pleased  to  welcome  two  new  Subcommittee  members. 
Senator  McCain  is  certainly  not  new  to  the  Senate.  Senator 
Dorgan,  we  welcome  you  to  this  Subcommittee.  Senator  McCain.  I 
believe  you  have  just  become  a  member  of  the  Subcommittee.  We 
are  delighted  to  have  both  of  you  here.  Of  course,  Senator  McCain, 
being  on  the  same  Committee  is  not  new  to  us.  We  have  been  on 
the  same  Armed  Services  Committee  for  a  long  time,  but  we  know 
both  of  you  are  going  to  make  a  real  contribution. 

I  call  on  Senator  Dorgan  for  any  opening  statement,  and  then 
Senator  McCain. 

OPENING  STATEMENT  OF  SENATOR  DORGAN 

Senator  Dorgan.  Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  very  much. 

I  want  to  simply  make  note  that  my  former  colleague,  Congress- 
man Richardson,  is  with  us.  I  have  worked  with  Bill  for  about  8 
years  on  boxing  legislation  over  in  the  House.  At  one  point,  I  spon- 
sored my  own  legislation.  In  the  last  Congress  and  in  the  previous 


Congress  to  that,  I  joined  Congressman  Richardson  in  cosponsoring 
his  legislation.  I  have  an  abiding  interest  in  this  issue. 

I  am  not  a  boxer.  If  I  were  a  boxer,  I  wouldn't  be  a  very  good 
boxer,  but  I  enjoy  the  sport.  It  is  indeed,  in  my  judgment,  a  sport 
that  is  in  desperate  need  of  some  kind  of  regulation  and  oversight 
to  protect  the  health,  safety,  security  and  future  of  young  people 
who  all  too  often  are  used  and  abused  by  people  who  don't  care 
very  much  for  the  human  side  of  the  sport. 

So  I  want  to  welcome  my  former  colleague,  Mr.  Richardson.  I  am 
anxious  to  hear  him  testify  and  I  am  anxious  to  work  with  Senator 
Roth  and  others  who  have  an  interest  in  this  issue. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Nunn.  Thank  you,  Senator  Dorgan. 

Senator  McCain. 

OPENING  STATEMENT  OF  SENATOR  MCCAIN 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  want  to  thank 
you  and  Senator  Roth  for  your  efforts  on  what  I  believe  is  a  very 
important  issue  to  Americans  who  may  not  in  any  way  be  interest- 
ed in  politics. 

Boxing  is  a  compelling  sport.  I  happen  to  be  an  avid  boxing  fan, 
and  there  is  a  clear  need  to  enact  legislation  somewhat  along  the 
lines  that  Senator  Roth  and  our  friend  from  New  Mexico,  Congress- 
man Richardson,  have  been  involved  in  for  a  long  time. 

Yesterday,  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Seth  Abraham,  who  is  going  to  be 
testifying  here  today,  who  is,  of  course,  intimately  involved  in  the 
issue  on  behalf  of  HBO,  reminded  me  of  a  comment  made  by 
Damian  Runyon,  that  boxing  is  the  red-light  district  of  sports,  and 
I  think  that  that  is  a  very  accurate  description  of  the  industry 
today.  At  the  same  time,  it  provides  a  degree  of  involvement  and 
support  that  is  really  kind  of  unique  because  it  is  a  unique  kind  of 
an  athletic  contest,  as  we  know. 

So  I  think  that  we  have  to  not  only  address  Senator  Roth's  bill 
but  I  would  also  at  some  point  like  to  see  this  whole  business  of 
who  is  on  first  and  the  alphabet  soup  of  boxing  organizations — 
there  is  an  article  in  this  month's  Ring  Magazine  entitled  "Who 
the  Man,"  and  it  says,  pay  no  attention  to  that  man  behind  the 
curtain,  especially  if  it  is  Jose  Sulaiman,  the  Lizard  of  Oz,  but  Rid- 
dick  Bowe  lost  the  undisputed  heavyweight  championship  of  the 
world  by  not  agreeing  to  fight  Lennox  Lewis.  It  has  nothing  to  do 
with  alphabets.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  business  as  usual. 

The  fact  is  that  there  is  a  lack  of  confidence  on  the  part  of  the 
American  people  that  every  fighter  of  quality  and  talent  is  given 
an  equal  opportunity,  which  is  unfortunately  too  often  dictated  by 
who  he  is  associated  with  as  opposed  to  his  individual  talents. 

So  I  would  like  to  see  us  also,  Senator  Roth,  I  know  how  impor- 
tant the  basics  of  this  are,  maybe  explore  a  little  bit  that  aspect  of 
the  boxing  industry  with  especially  our  ESPN  and  HBO  witnesses. 

I  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  thank  Senator  Roth  also  for 
his  many-year  effort  on,  I  think,  what  is  an  important  issue  to  mil- 
lions of  Americans. 

Senator  Nunn.  Thank  you,  Senator  McCain. 


Congressman  Richardson,  we  are  pleased  to  have  you  this  morn- 
ing. I  know  you  have  worked  long  and  hard  on  this  subject.  We 
swear  in  all  the  witnesses  before  the  Subcommittee  and  we  have 
never  had  any  exceptions,  so  we  will  ask  you  to  take  the  oath,  if 
you  would,  before  you  testify. 

Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  give  before  this  Subcommittee  to 
be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help 
you  God? 

Mr.  Richardson.  Yes,  I  do. 

Senator  Nunn.  We  are  pleased  to  have  you  and  we  welcome  your 
testimony. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  BILL  RICHARDSON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN 
CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  MEXICO 

Mr.  Richardson.  Thank  you,  Senator  Roth,  thank  you,  Senator 
Nunn,  members  of  the  Subcommittee. 

First  of  all,  let  me  express  my  delight  in  having  such  interest  in 
this  body  for  this  legislation.  I  think  as  Mr.  Dorgan  may  have  men- 
tioned, in  the  House  for  years  we  have  tried  to  get  legislation 
passed.  We  did  succeed  one  session,  but  unfortunately  it  didn't 
move  beyond  the  House. 

So  I  am  delighted  with  this  Subcommittee's  activity.  You  have  al- 
ready made  a  difference.  Senator  Roth,  thank  you,  because  you 
have  raised  the  awareness  of  this  issue  throughout  the  country, 
something  that  we  were  not  able  to  do  in  the  House,  so  I  think  to 
all  of  you,  you  have  already  made  a  difference  and  I  thank  you. 

As  you  know,  I  have  long  pursued  legislative  action  in  the  House 
to  establish  minimum  health  and  safety  standards  for  professional 
boxing  and  I  look  forward  to  working  with  this  Subcommittee  so 
that  finally,  this  calendar  year,  perhaps,  we  can  pass  legislation 
that  will  become  law. 

The  regulation  of  professional  boxing  today  is  best  described  as  a 
non-system.  Forty-two  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia  regulate 
boxing.  Each  State  determines  the  extent  to  which  it  will  or  will 
not  regulate  the  sport.  Herein  lies  the  major  health  and  safety 
problem  in  professional  boxing.  There  are  no  uniform  standards  in 
existence.  Thus,  a  boxer  unfit  to  fight  in  one  State  can  simply  go 
fight  in  another  State  with  less  stringent  or  no  health  and  safety 
standards. 

For  example,  in  1990  a  great  fighter  by  the  name  of  Aaron  Pryor 
was  diagnosed  as  legally  blind  in  his  left  eye.  Most  States  consid- 
ered him  unfit  to  fight  and  wouldn't  grant  him  a  license.  Willing  to 
risk  fighting  with  a  blind  eye,  Aaron  Pryor  simply  went  to  the 
State  of  Wisconsin,  which  had  no  boxing  commission,  and  received 
a  license  to  fight  through  the  Wisconsin  Department  of  Regulation 
and  Licensing.  The  Department  clearly  had  no  qualifications  to 
regulate  boxing  or  grant  such  a  license,  but  because  the  State  had 
no  boxing  commission  and  no  uniform  health  and  safety  regula- 
tions, Aaron  Pryor  was  allowed  to  fight. 

Another  major  problem  in  the  sport  is  that  there  is  little  coordi- 
nation between  the  States  to  keep  track  of  the  won /loss  records  of 
professional  fighters.  A  boxer  may  have  different  won /loss  records 
in  several  States.  Sports  Illustrated  ran  an  article  that  described  a 


fighter,  whose  manager  listed  his  won /loss  record  at  15  wins  and 
19  losses.  Minnesota  listed  him  at  17-27-1,  and  Texas  listed  him  at 
6-7.  The  absence  of  a  national  tracking  system  allows  gross  mis- 
matches to  occur  which  threaten  the  health  and  safety  of  the  fight- 
ers. 

Clearly,  the  sport,  professional  boxing,  needs  to  be  cleaned  up. 
Mismatches  are  frequent,  health  and  safety  of  boxers  is  not  a  con- 
sideration of  many  promoters,  State  regulation  is  in  many  cases  in- 
adequate, and  existing  organizations  are  not  adequately  addressing 
health  and  safety  problems. 

Professional  boxing  can  bring  fame  and  fortune  to  a  lucky  few, 
but  most  professional  boxers  fight  one-too-many  fights  and  take 
one-too-many  punches.  Too  often,  people  think  of  professional  fight- 
ers are  being  successful  ones  like  Riddick  Bowe  or  Mike  Tyson  or 
Julio  Cesar  Chavez,  but  there  are  thousands  upon  thousands, 
mainly  minority,  black  and  Hispanic  fighters  who  don't  make  it, 
who  are  abused,  who  are  sacrificed  on  the  altar  of  money  and  greed 
and  many  times  are  forgotten,  and  they  leave  the  sport  decimated 
physically,  financially,  and  it  is  to  those  that  we  owe  a  special  re- 
sponsibility. As  I  said,  ultimately  the  losers  in  this  situation  are 
the  no-name  boxers  who  wind  up  with  nothing. 

As  an  avid  boxing  fan,  like  many  of  you,  I  want  to  see  this  sport 
continue  to  be  a  popular  sport.  I  don't  favor  banning  the  sport.  I 
think  that  makes  little  sense.  The  best  way  to  ensure  that  boxing 
remains  a  popular  sport  is  to  protect  the  health  and  safety  of  the 
fighters  themselves. 

In  this  effort,  I  have  long  proposed,  along  with  many  of  you,  the 
establishment  of  a  Federal  Boxing  Corporation  with  a  mandate  to 
work  with  State  boxing  authorities  to  develop  uniform  minimum 
health  and  safety  standards  for  professional  boxing. 

Specifically,  the  Corporation  would  issue  regulations  for  physical 
and  mental  examinations,  issue  standards  for  medical  services  at 
boxing  matches,  issue  standards  to  ensure  the  use  of  safe  boxing 
equipment,  issue  regulations  to  prevent  conflicts  of  interest  related 
to  boxing  matches,  and  other  safety-regulated  regulations,  in  addi- 
tion to  trying  to  set  up  a  pension  system  for  fighters  so  that  they 
have  some  kind  of  security  and  protection  after  they  finish  their 
fighting. 

Each  State  regulating  professional  boxing  would  be  required  to 
develop  a  boxing  plan  in  compliance  with  the  minimum  standards 
established  by  the  Federal  Boxing  Corporation.  The  Corporation 
would  have  legal  authority  to  enforce  full  compliance  with  such 
regulations. 

In  addition,  the  Corporation  would  be  required  to  establish  a  na- 
tional computer  source  that  will  contain  a  list  of  professional 
boxers,  medical  records,  won/loss  records,  and  other  pertinent  in- 
formation. Based  on  this  information,  the  Corporation  would  issue 
a  license  to  each  individual  associated  with  a  professional  boxing 
match  who  meets  the  minimum  standards.  Registration  and  licens- 
ing fees  would  be  collected  and  deposited  into  the  U.S.  Treasury  to 
fund  the  Corporation  so  that  no  taxpayer  dollars  are  spent,  except 
perhaps  for  an  initial  start-up  loan  that  would  be  fully  repaid. 

Senator  Roth  introduced  similar  legislation  in  the  Senate  last 
Congress  and  I  am  pleased  to  be  working  with  him  and  others  in 


the  Subcommittee  to  come  up  with  legislation  that  we  can  all  joint- 
ly introduce  in  this  Congress. 

Again,  as  I  stated,  it  is  my  sincere  hope  that  in  this  session  of 
Congress  we  can  pass  this  legislation,  and  again  to  all  my  Senate 
colleagues,  it  is  wonderful  to  see  you  actively  interested  in  this 
issue.  I  think  we  need  to  move.  I  want  to  work  with  you,  and  I 
thank  you  for  allowing  me  this  opportunity. 

Prepared  Statement  of  Congressman  Richardson 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  commend  you  for  holding  this  hearing  on  health  and 
safety  issues  with  respect  to  professional  boxing.  As  you  know,  I  have  long  pursued 
legislative  action  in  the  House  to  establish  minimum  health  and  safety  standards 
for  professional  boxing.  I  am  enlightened  to  see  interest  in  this  issue  by  the  Senate 
through  this  Subcommittee  and  the  lead  role  of  Senator  Roth. 

The  regulation  of  professional  boxing  today  is  best  described  as  a  non-system. 
Forty-two  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia  regulate  boxing.  Each  State  deter- 
mines the  extent  to  which  it  will,  or  will  not,  regulate  boxing.  Herein  lies  the  major 
health  and  safety  problem  in  professional  boxing — there  are  no  uniform  standards 
in  existence.  Thus,  a  boxer  unfit  to  fight  in  one  State  can  simply  go  fight  in  another 
State  with  less  stringent  or  no  health  and  safety  standards. 

Another  major  problem  in  professional  boxing  is  that  there  is  little  coordination 
between  the  States  to  register  or  keep  track  of  the  won /loss  records  of  professional 
fighters.  A  boxer  may  have  different  won/ loss  records  in  several  different  States. 
The  absence  of  a  national  tracking  system  allows  gross  mismatches  to  occur  which 
threaten  the  health  and  safety  of  the  fighters. 

Clearly,  professional  boxing  needs  to  be  "cleaned  up."  Mismatches  are  frequent, 
health  and  safety  of  boxers  is  not  a  consideration  of  many  promoters,  State  regula- 
tion is  in  many  cases  inadequate  and  existing  organizations  are  not  adequately  ad- 
dressing health  and  safety  problems.  Professional  boxing  can  bring  fame  and  for- 
tune to  a  lucky  few,  but  most  professional  boxers  fight  one-to-many  fights  and  take 
one-to-many  punches. 

As  an  avid  boxing  fan,  I  want  to  see  that  professional  boxing  continues  to  be  a 
popular  sport.  The  best  way  to  ensure  that  boxing  remains  a  credible  and  popular 
sport  is  to  protect  the  health  and  safety  of  the  fighters  themselves.  In  this  effort,  I 
have  long  proposed  the  establishment  of  a  Federal  Boxing  Corporation  with  a  man- 
date to  work  with  State  boxing  authorities  to  develop  uniform  minimum  health  and 
safety  standards  for  professional  boxing.  Specifically,  the  Corporation  would  issue 
regulations  for  physical  and  mental  examinations,  issue  standards  for  medical  serv- 
ices at  boxing  matches,  issue  standards  to  ensure  the  use  of  safe  boxing  equipment, 
issue  regulations  to  prevent  conflicts  of  interest  related  to  boxing  matches,  and 
other  safety-regulated  regulations.  Each  State  regulating  professional  boxing  would 
be  required  to  develop  a  boxing  plan  in  compliance  with  the  minimum  standards 
established  by  the  Federal  Boxing  Corporation.  The  Corporation  would  have  legal 
authority  to  enforce  full  compliance  with  such  regulations. 

In  addition,  the  Corporation  would  be  required  to  establish  a  national  computer 
source  that  will  contain  a  list  of  professional  boxers,  medical  records,  won /loss 
records,  and  other  pertinent  information.  Based  on  this  information,  the  Corpora- 
tion would  issue  a  license  to  each  individual  associated  with  a  professional  boxing 
match  who  meets  the  minimum  standards.  Registration  and  licensing  fees  would  be 
collected  and  deposited  into  the  U.S.  Treasury  to  fund  the  Corporation  so  that  no 
taxpayer  dollars  are  spent  except  for  an  initial  start-up  loan  that  would  be  fully 
repaid. 

Senator  Roth  introduced  similar  legislation  in  the  Senate  last  Congress  and  I  am 
pleased  to  be  working  with  him  to  come  up  with  compromise  legislation  that  we  can 
introduce  this  Congress.  It  is  my  sincere  hope  that  we  can  pass  legislation  this  Con- 
gress and  avoid  needless  deaths  and  injuries  in  the  ring.  Thank  you  for  this  opportu- 
nity to  testify. 

Senator  Nunn.  Thtank  you  very  much,  Congressman  Richardson. 

I  am  going  to  turn  it  over  to  Senator  Roth  for  the  first  round  of 
questions,  and  then  Senator  Roth,  I  am  going  to  have  to  be  in  and 
out  this  morning,  so  I  would  really  like  for  you  to  preside. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 


10 

First,  I  would  like  to  welcome  my  good  friend  and  colleague,  Bill 
Richardson.  I  have  had  the  pleasure  of  working  with  him  on  other 
issues.  I  know  him  to  be  a  fighter  for  what  he  believes  in  and  I 
can't  express  enough  my  respect  and  thanks  for  the  leadership  he 
is  showing  in  this  particular  issue. 

Congressman  Richardson,  what  do  you  see  as  the  aspects  of  pro- 
fessional boxing  most  in  need  of  reforms? 

Mr.  Richardson.  Well,  Senator,  within  the  purview  of  this  Con- 
gress, I  do  think  that  the  initial  concentration  should  be  to  deal 
with  the  health  and  safety  of  boxers.  What  you  have  been  doing  in 
your  hearings  I  think  is  paramount.  We  have  to  set  up  these  uni- 
form standards.  We  have  to  have  each  State  commission  have  mini- 
mum health  and  safety  standards.  We  have  to  have  this  computer 
tracking  system.  I  believe  that  that  has  to  be  a  priority. 

Second,  what  Senator  McCain  said,  I  just  don't  know  how  you 
pui  a  legislative  handle  on  it.  There  are  many  "international 
boxing  associations"  whose  rankings  and  activities  sometimes  are 
very  suspect,  and  because  they  operate  in  foreign  countries,  one  in 
Mexico,  one  in  Venezuela,  you  can't  get  a  handle  on  their  activity 
because  they  are  not  incorporated  in  this  country.  Many  times, 
these  entities  establish  these  gross  mismatches. 

One  leverage  that  we  have  over  them  is  the  licensing  fee  that 
they  have  to  pay  the  promoters  when  they  accept  the  fight  to  be  a 
championship  fight,  a  sanctioning  fee,  rather.  So  I  think  we  have  to 
deal  with  those  issues  relating  to  the  international  corporations 
that  govern  boxing. 

And  third,  Senator  Roth,  I  think  we  have  to  be  careful  about 
overregulating  the  sport.  Professional  football,  professional  basket- 
ball, they  have  czars  that  establish  some  kind  of  regulation.  Boxing 
doesn't  even  have  that.  That  doesn't  mean  that  we  have  an  entire- 
ly government  entity  regulating  the  sport,  I  think  the  free  market 
has  to  operate,  but  those  two  areas,  health  and  safety,  and  some 
kind  of  handle  to  deal  with  the  international  bodies. 

And  perhaps  fourth,  I  think  it  is  a  conflict  of  interest  for  a  fight- 
er to  have  a  promoter  and  a  manager  as  both  the  same  person.  I 
don't  think  that  should  be.  That  is  a  gross  conflict  of  interest  that 
exists  dramatically  in  the  sport,  and  if  there  is  a  way  we  can  dis- 
courage that  or  not  have  it,  I  would  support  that.  Those  would  be 
the  three  areas. 

Senator  Roth.  One  further  question,  in  a  lot  of  sports  there  is 
self-regulation,  and  frankly  I  would  like  to  see  that  take  place  here, 
but  do  you  see  that  as  a  realistic  possibility,  that  boxing  can  be  an- 
ticipated to  adopt  self-regulation  in  an  effective  way? 

Mr.  Richardson.  Senator  Roth,  when  Congressman  Dorgan  and  I 
pushed  this  legislation  in  the  House  the  last  8  years,  our  hope 
would  be  that  boxing  self  regulate,  and  I  think  Senator  Cohen  men- 
tioned that  signals  were  sent  for  the  sport  to  do  something  about 
some  of  these  health  and  safety  problems  and  it  didn't  happen.  We 
need  to  step  in. 

I  do  think,  again,  that  there  are  some  State  commissions,  and  to 
be  fair,  I  think  New  York,  Nevada  in  many  cases  have  very  strict 
and  good  safety  requirements.  But  you  go  beyond  those  States  and 
there  are  hardly  any  requirements.  I  am  not  saying  the  require- 
ments in  these  States  are  perfect,  but  I  have  been  encouraged. 


11 

I  had  a  meeting  in  New  York  recently  with  some  officials  from 
the  New  York  State  Boxing  Commission  and  I  would  say  that  they 
have  become  rather  vigilant,  but  that  is  one  State.  We  have  many 
other  states. 

But  I  do  think  we  need  to  act,  and  what  we  are  doing  in  terms  of 
minimum  health  and  safety  standards  I  don't  believe  is  regulation. 
If  we  set  up  a  Federal  Boxing  Commission  that  started  to  rank 
fighters,  I  think  that  would  be  a  problem,  Senator.  I  do  think  that 
that  is  probably  best  left  to  boxing  people,  legitimate  boxing  enti- 
ties, but  when  you  have  four  or  five  championship  entities  and  you 
have  a  number  of  other  rating  systems  and  many  times  those 
rating  systems  are  governed  by  promoters  and  money  that  deals 
more  with  the  financial  aspects  of  a  fight  as  opposed  to  legitimate 
rankings,  I  think,  as  Senator  McCain  said,  we  need  to  have  some 
kind  of  regulation. 

Senator  Roth.  Part  of  the  problem,  if  I  understand  what  you  are 
saying,  is  that  even  if  you  had  effective  regulation  within  a  State, 
it  is  so  easy  to  avoid  by  going  into  other  States,  and  then,  of  course, 
as  Senator  McCain  brought  out,  you  have  the  international  prob- 
lem. 

Mr.  Richardson.  That  is  right,  Senator.  You  can  be  a  fighter  and 
get  knocked  out  in  one  State  and  then  2  days  later  appear  in  an- 
other State  where  they  didn't  know  about  the  previous  fight — there 
is  no  tracking  system,  there  is  no  record  of  the  fighter — and  you 
can  get  knocked  out  again,  and  this  jeopardizes  the  health  of  the 
fighter. 

And  many  times,  I  think  what  we  are  doing  is  helping  the  fight- 
ers. There  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  young  men  around  this 
country  and  around  the  world  that  are  not  the  Riddick  Bowes,  that 
are  not  the  great  champions  that  we  read  about  that  are  success- 
ful, and  those  are  the  individuals  that  I  think  we  have  a  responsi- 
bility to  protect,  and  the  fan.  I  think  that  the  fan  needs  to  be  as- 
sured that  the  fights  are  legitimate  and  that  there  is  health  and 
safety  and  that  the  sport  is  on  the  uptake. 

Senator  Roth.  Otherwise  the  sport  will  die. 

Mr.  Richardson.  Yes,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  Senator  Dorgan. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Thank  you  very  much. 

It  is  interesting  that,  for  example,  the  anti-trust  exemption  given 
to  baseball  by  the  Congress  and  the  government  allows  them  to  es- 
tablish their  own  government.  In  effect,  some  major  league  sports 
establish  their  own  government  because  we  have  said  they  shall 
not  be  subject  to  anti-trust  laws. 

I  understand  your  admonition.  We  don't  want  to  establish  a  gov- 
ernment-run boxing  system  in  this  country.  By  the  same  token,  we 
are  not  so  much  talking  about  reform  of  the  system  because  there 
isn't  a  system.  There  really  isn't  any  system. 

Sports  Illustrated  did  a  piece  on  a  fighter  called  Mouse,  who 
some  in  this  room  may  have  seen  fight  around  the  country.  I  have 
seen  him  fight  a  couple  of  times.  Mouse — that  is  his  nickname — 
Mouse  is  an  opponent.  He  gets  knocked  out  in  one  State  1  night 
and  3  days  later  he  gets  knocked  out  in  another  State.  He  has 
claimed  to  have  been  knocked  out  more  than  any  other  fighter  in 
the  history  of  boxing,  and  he  makes  his  living  going  around  getting 


12 

knocked  out.  I  guess  Mouse  is  retired  now.  Mouse  was  also  a  pro- 
moter, as  he  was  a  fighter. 

That  rather  interesting  article  in  Sports  Illustrated,  a  lengthy  ar- 
ticle about  boxing  and  about  the  opponent,  described  the  names  no 
one  would  recognize  and  what  happens  to  those  folks  in  the  sport 
of  boxing.  It  desperately  calls  for  the  construction  of  a  new 
system — not  a  reformation  of  the  old  system  because  there  is  no 
system.  So  that  is  what  we  are  talking  about.  We  are  talking  about 
constructing  a  system  that  doesn't  create  a  governmental  boxing 
entity  so  much  as  it  tries  to  describe  some  uniformity  and  health 
and  safety  rules  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  Richardson,  you  have  called  for,  and  I  have  supported  you  in 
calling  for;  the  establishment  of  a  commission  in  the  Labor  Depart- 
ment that  would  really  establish  uniform  rules.  Let  me  ask  you, 
how  would  that  bill  relate  to  the  problems  we're  discussing  here?  I 
understand  how  it  would  relate  to  a  fighter.  You  have  to  register, 
all  your  fights  have  to  be  entered  in  the  computer  so  we  know 
when  you  fought,  what  your  record  is,  what  happened  to  you,  when 
you  were  last  knocked  out,  and  so  on.  So  I  understand  how  it  would 
relate  to  the  fighter. 

How  would  a  boxing  commission  of  that  type  relate  to  the  gov- 
erning organizations — for  example,  WBA,  WBC — some  of  which  op- 
erate outside  the  country  and  then  do  business  in  this  country?  I 
wrote  to  one  of  them  a  couple  of  months  ago  and  I  said,  you  know, 
I  would  like  to  know  a  little  bit  about  your  organization.  How  do 
you  operate?  What  are  your  bylaws?  Who  makes  decisions?  What  is 
your  revenue  base?  I  not  only  didn't  get  the  right  answers,  I  didn't 
get  a  response  to  my  inquiry. 

How  would  a  boxing  commission  relate  to  the  central  organiza- 
tions that  now  seem  to  control  most  of  boxing  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Richardson.  Well,  Senator  Dorgan,  what  the  boxing  commis- 
sion, the  establishment  would  have  fundamentally  a  bully  pulpit 
value  ihat  would  hopefully  be  accepted  by  all  boxing  organizations. 

Second,  and  I  think  this  is  what  Senator  McCain  mentioned,  how 
do  you  deal  with  the  WBC  in  Caracas,  Venezuela,  that  allows  so- 
and-so  to  become  a  champion?  I  think  the  way  to  deal  with  it  is  use 
a  sanctioning  fee.  As  you  know,  in  order  for  a  championship  fight 
to  take  place  and  the  WBC  belt  is  on  the  line,  the  promoter  has  to 
pay  that  organization  some  kind  of  a  sanctioning  fee,  and  since 
most  of  the  financial  activity  of  our  networks  originates  generally 
in  the  United  States,  I  think  there  is  a  source  of  leverage,  but  that 
is  something  that  we  need  to  do. 

We  need  to  establish  that  these,  perhaps  on  an  informal  basis, 
because  I  think  that  the  only  national  boxing  entity  that  is  in  the 
United  States  is  the  IBF,  the  International  Boxing  Federation 
based  in  New  Jersey,  to  ensure  that  these  international  organiza- 
tions comply  with  this  legislation.  But  what  this  boxing  corporation 
would  do,  they  would  issue  licenses  for  any  fighter,  American  and 
non-American  fighting  in  the  United  States,  to  fight,  so  you  do 
have  some  leverage.  The  same  with  cut-man  managers,  physicians. 
The  boxing  people  would  basically  go  to  this  commission  to  get  cer- 
tified, to  get  licenses.  So  you  do  exercise  a  source  of  leverage  over 
the  boxing  community. 


13 

Senator  Dorgan.  The  other  side  of  it,  on  the  sporting  side  of  it,  it 
is  now  a  joke  in  boxing.  You  have  so  many  champions  in  so  many 
different  divisions.  It  used  to  be  when  Rocky  Marciano  was  the 
heavyweight  champion,  he  was  the  heavyweight  champion.  And 
my  guess  is  the  construction  of  these  different  bodies  really  has 
only  to  do  with  money. 

If  you  construct  a  range  of  different  governing  bodies,  what  you 
do  is  create  another  network  of  champions.  What  does  that  do? 
That  translates  into  money  because  you  can  sell  a  championship 
fight.  This  is  true  despite  the  fact  this  person  is  a  champion  in 
name  by  an  organization  that  was  created  to  manufacture  champi- 
ons for  the  purpose  of  money,  I  would  guess.  I  mean,  the  whole 
thing  has  become  a  joke  in  a  lot  of  ways.  This  is  tragic,  because  I 
think  boxing  is  a  sport  that  has  a  wonderful  tradition  and  a  won- 
derful history. 

And  I  agree  with  you,  Mr.  Richardson,  I  don't  think  boxing  ought 
to  be  banned.  I  certainly  think  under  conditions  that  many  fighters 
fight  in  today,  it  is  unsafe,  but  I  would  not  like  to  see  it  banned. 

Let  me  just  say  that  the  work  you  have  done  is  very  important.  I 
recall  one  evening  maybe  6,  7  years  ago  when  you  and  I  and  people 
like  Lou  Duva,  Emanuel  Steward,  and  so  many  other  experts  in 
boxing  who  handle  fighters  spent  the  entire  evening  talking  about 
what  should  be  done.  The  menu  and  the  recipe  of  what  should  be 
done  hasn't  changed  a  bit.  It  is  just  that  5  or  6  years  have  gone  by 
and  we  haven't  gotten  it  done. 

We  really  need  to  do  this  for  the  sake  of  the  young  fighters  out 
there  who  are  risking  their  lives  under  the  current  circumstances. 
We  need  to  do  this  to  clean  up  boxing  and  make  it  safe  for  the 
fighters,  I  commend  your  active  interest  and  I  hope  this  year  we 
can  get  this  done. 

Senator  Roth.  Is  this  proliferation  of  titles  partly  the  conse- 
quence of  the  big  money  TV,  is  that 

Mr.  Richardson.  I  would  say  so,  Senator  Roth.  I  do  think  that  it 
is  not  just  television,  and  I  will  say  that  there  are  a  lot  of  boxing 
people  that  want  reform  and  some  are  in  the  networks  and  some 
are  promoters.  It  is  not 

Senator  Roth.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Richardson  [continuing].  That  everyone  is  against  resisting 
reform,  significant  elements  are. 

But  yes,  I  think  Mr.  Dorgan  is  right.  When  you  can  certify  that 
there  are  more  heavyweight  champions,  you  have  more  heavy- 
weight championship  fights,  more  money  is  to  be  made,  and  some 
of  the  champions  are  rather  dubious  as  you  get  into  the  lower 
weight  classes.  It  would  be  nice  if  you  have  one  boxing  organization 
that  rates  all  the  fighters,  but  unfortunately  the  trend  is  towards 
increasing.  There  is  now  a  new  one,  the  WBO,  so  you  could  conceiv- 
ably have  four  champions  in  one  weight  division  and  that  forces 
them  to  fight  each  other. 

Now  there  is  nothing  wrong  with  that  competitive  market 
system,  but  I  do  think  the  public  is  better  served  by  one  organiza- 
tion that  fully  complies  with  our  laws,  that  fully  is  able  to  protect 
the  fighter,  and  some  international  organizations,  some  boxing  or- 
ganizations, are  more  pro-health  and  safety  than  the  others.  The 


14 

problem  is  exactly  that,  the  lack  of  uniform  health  and  safety 
standards  of  any  kind. 

Senator  Roth.  Senator  McCain. 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Just  to  follow  up  on  Senator  Dorgan's  comments,  in  this  month's 
issue  of  Ring  Magazine  they  have  the  ring  ratings  for  May  of  1948, 
every  name,  even  as  young  as  Congressman  Richardson  is,  he 
would  know  and  recognize  and  remember:  Marcel  Cerdan,  Kid  Ga- 
vilan,  Ezzard  Charles,  Joe  Walcott,  Sandy  Sandler.  There  were 
eight  boxing  divisions  that  we  all  knew  and  appreciated,  and  there 
was  one  champion  for  each. 

Now,  as  another  page  in  Ring  Magazine  shows,  there  are  16 
weight  divisions.  As  an  avid  boxing  fan,  I  can  tell  you  I  don't  know 
Sung  Kil  Moon,  and  I  don't  know  Yuri  Arbachakov  or  Myung  Woo 
Yuh.  Frankly,  I  think  it  hurts  boxing  in  the  long  run  to  have  this 
proliferation  of  weight  classes,  and  if  we  list  all  the  other  organiza- 
tions you  talked  about — including  WBC,  North  American  Boxing 
Federation,  IBF,  etc. — it  adds  up  to  enormous  confusion.  I  don't 
think  that  the  American  people  and  sports  fans  are  fooled  for  very 
long  when  certain  bouts  are  billed  as  a  "championship  fight."  I  rec- 
ognize this  situation  may  not  be  the  most  important  part  of  this 
hearing,  however. 

I  would  like  to  get  back,  Congressman  Richardson,  just  briefly  to 
this  business  of  how  we  would  prevent  this  proliferation  of  organi- 
zations. One  of  the  reasons  why  I  think  we  ought  to  look  at  it  a 
second  is  because  we  have  seen  a  recurring  phenomena.  A  boxer, 
and  I  do  not  mean  this  in  any  way  to  be  ethnic  or  nationalistic — 
usually  from  an  Asian  country  somewhere  that  none  of  us  has  ever 
heard  of — is  designated  as  the  "No.  1  contender"  which  a  champion 
is  then  forced  to  fight.  Otherwise  the  champion  risks  losing  the  so- 
called  "title."  Invariably  that  person,  whom  no  one  has  ever  heard 
of  and  has  generally  never  fought  in  the  U.S.,  is  now  in  a  multi- 
million  dollar  fight,  and  it  usually  ends  within  two  or  three  rounds. 
Due  to  one  of  the  international  boxing  organizations  based  outside 
the  U.S.  having  designated  that  unknown  boxer  as  the  "No.  1  con- 
tender," the  fans  are  cheated.  They  are  cheated  badly  on  that  type 
of  mismatch. 

Mr.  Chairman,  in  my  view,  and  I  would  like  to  hear  Congress- 
man Richardson's  view,  perhaps  we  could  in  this  legislation  set  up 
some  form  of  sanctioning  that  this  organization  would  have  to,  in 
order  for  that  fight  to  take  place  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
to  be  sanctioned  by  this  commission  as  indeed  the  legitimate  con- 
tenders and  champions.  I  wonder  if  Congressman  Richardson  has  a 
view  on  that. 

Mr.  Richardson.  Well,  Senator  McCain,  I  would  favor  that,  and  I 
think  Senator  Dorgan  will  tell  you  that  in  the  old  days  we  were 
leery  about  putting  something  like  that  in  for  fear  that  some  would 
charge  us  with  overregulating,  but  I  do  think  we  need  that.  I  think 
the  leverage,  as  I  said  before,  is  the  sanctioning  fee,  that  for  in- 
stance a  promoter  or  a  network  will  pay,  say,  the  WBA,  for  a  fight 
to  exist.  And  I  think  in  the  WBA,  most  of  the  fights,  most  of  the 
championship  fights  seem  to  be  in  Las  Vegas,  Nevada,  Atlantic 
City,  Madison  Square  Garden,  in  the  United  States,  usually  involv- 


15 

ing  American  fighters,  that  they  should  comply  with  this  commis- 
sion and  they  should  observe  the  rules  and  laws  of  this  commission. 

So  I  would  favor  that,  Senator  McCain,  and  I  would  hope  we  find 
a  way  to  deal  with  that. 

Let  me  also  say  I  am  delighted  to  know  that  there  is  a  member 
of  the  Congress  besides  myself  that  reads  Ring  Magazine.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr.  Richardson.  I  thought  I  was 

Senator  McCain.  The  editor  of  Ring  Magazine  said,  "What  could 
the  government  do  to  boxing  that  it  hasn't  already  done  to  itself?" 
[Laughter.] 

Senator  McCain.  As  one  who  is  generally  not  in  favor  of  regula- 
tion, Mr.  Chairman,  I  agree  with  his  views  in  this  regard. 

Finally,  I  would  ask  Congressman  Richardson — and  I  know  we 
have  other  witnesses,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  sorry  for  the  length  of 
time — Bobby  Czyz,  who  was  an  excellent  fighter,  as  we  all  know, 
made  the  following  recommendations  at  the  last  hearing.  He  said, 
boxing  organizations  could  reform  the  treatment  of  their  athletes, 
including  having  one  set  of  rules  regulating  fights,  making  sure 
that  mismatches  are  not  as  prevalent,  setting  aside  money  for  a 
pension  fund — I  think  it  is  the  only  major  sport  in  America  that 
does  not  have  a  pension  fund  and  probably  needs  it  more  than  any 
other — and  eliminating  fight  fees  that  boxers  have  to  pay.  As  in 
football  and  baseball,  boxing  needs  a  players'  union. 

Do  you  have  any  comments  on  his  recommendations? 

Mr.  Richardson.  Yes.  I  believe,  Senator  McCain,  that  if  we 
create  this  commission  along  the  lines  that  we  all,  Senator  Roth 
and  all  of  us,  and  Byron  and  myself  want  to  do,  that  this  commis- 
sion itself  would  contain  distinguished  people,  many  of  them 
boxing  people,  that  would  start  and  take  a  leadership  activist  role 
to  do  those  things  that  you  mentioned. 

I  think  the  first  step  has  to  be  to  create  this  commission,  to 
create  a  chairman  of  this  commission,  to  give  this  commission  flexi- 
bility in  these  health  and  safety  rules,  to  basically  have  a  charter 
of  improving  the  condition  of  boxing.  You  know,  the  Commissioner 
of  Baseball  has  a  very  broad  mandate,  to  act  in 

Senator  McCain.  When  they  have  one!  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Richardson.  When  they  have  one,  to  act  in  the  best  interest 
of  baseball.  That  is  very  broad.  Lately  it  hasn't  been  observed,  as 
you  know,  by  the  owners. 

But  I  just  think  the  first  step  is  to  set  up  this  commission,  give 
them  that  health  and  safety  mandate.  I  believe  that  it  is  successful. 
I  know  Senator  Roth  wants  to  put  in  the  legislation  that  there  be, 
maybe  not  necessarily  a  termination  date,  but  to  see  if  this  com- 
mission works,  and  I  think  that  we  should  evaluate  it  after  a 
period  of  time. 

But  for  all  of  those  goals  that  Bobby  Czyz  and  you  outlined,  I 
think  they  can  be  achieved  with  the  creation  of  this  commission.  I 
naturally  would  like  to  see  more  regulation  than  I  have  put  in  this 
legislation.  I  have  been  leery  of  going  beyond  that  because  of  trying 
to  keep  a  political  base  of  support  for  the  bill  that,  by  the  way,  in 
the  House  got  Republican  support.  We  got  quite  a  bit  of  support 
across  party  lines  and  we  were  just  not  able  to  move  it  because 


16 

there  were  no  Senator  Roths  and  people  like  you  and  Byron  Dor- 
gans  ready  to  move  here. 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Roth.  Congressman  Richardson,  I  appreciate  your  taking 
the  time  to  come  over  here  and  testify  before  us.  We  look  forward 
to  working  together  in  an  effort  to  get  some  kind  of  legislation  en- 
acted. 

Mr.  Richardson.  Thank  you,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you  very  much. 

At  this  time,  we  will  call  our  first  panel  of  witnesses,  Minority 
Staff  Counsel  Stephen  Levin  and  Leighton  Lord,  who  will  be  pre- 
senting the  staff  statement. 

Will  you  please  stand  and  raise  your  right  hand? 

Do  you  swear  to  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Levin.  I  do. 

Mr.  Lord.  I  do. 

Senator  Roth.  Please  be  seated. 

Mr.  Levin. 

TESTIMONY  OF  STEPHEN  LEVIN,  MINORITY  STAFF  COUNSEL;  AC- 
COMPANIED BY  W.  LEIGHTON  LORD  III,  MINORITY  STAFF 
COUNSEL,  PERMANENT  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS, 
COMMITTEE  ON  GOVERNMENTAL  AFFAIRS,  U.S.  SENATE 

Mr.  Levin.  Thank  you,  Senator  Roth  and  members  of  the  Sub- 
committee. 

Thirty  years  ago,  the  last  Senate  inquiry  into  professional  boxing 
concluded  that  if  the  industry  was  not  cleaned  up,  it  should  be 
abolished.  After  an  extensive  year-long  investigation,  we  conclude 
that  many  of  the  problems  existing  within  the  boxing  industry 
three  decades  ago  still  remain. 

Can  boxing  survive?  One  State  boxing  regulator  testified  before 
the  Subcommittee  that  if  boxing  is  not  better  regulated,  there 
would  be  no  need  to  abolish  it  because  it  would  simply  die  a  natu- 
ral death.  We  believe  boxing  can  be  saved,  but  it  will  require  major 
alterations  of  the  current  regulatory  system. 

Our  investigation  found  that  the  regulatory  structure  that  Sena- 
tor Kefauver  found  inadequate  when  he  took  a  close  look  at  boxing 
over  30  years  ago  remains  in  place  today.  In  more  than  40  States, 
boxing  is  regulated  on  the  State  or  local  level.  In  several  States, 
there  is  no  governmental  regulation  of  boxing  although  boxing  is 
not  illegal  in  those  states. 

Our  investigation's  findings  can  generally  be  categorized  in 
terms  of  the  organization  and  operation  of  boxing,  health  and 
safety  issues,  and  media  involvement  in  boxing. 

Several  significant  findings  relate  to  the  current  organization 
and  operation  of  professional  boxing.  We  found  that  the  current 
system  by  which  professional  boxing  is  regulated  in  the  United 
States  is  characterized  by  inconsistent  and  often  inadequate  regula- 
tions, licensure,  and  enforcement.  This  endangers  the  health  and 
safety  of  professional  boxers,  denies  them  protection  from  financial 
exploitation,  and  raises  questions  regarding  the  fairness  of  the 
sport,  damaging  its  credibility  with  the  public. 


17 

The  investigation  called  into  question  the  role  currently  played 
by  international  sanctioning  bodies.  These  organizations  derive 
their  power  from  the  fact  that  they  control  the  most  sought-after 
prizes  in  boxing,  world  titles  and  rankings.  As  a  result,  they  are 
frequently  able  to  impose  their  own  rules  and  their  own  officials  on 
State  regulatory  bodies.  The  State  regulators  are  then  faced  with 
the  possibility  that  if  they  insist  on  enforcing  their  regulations,  the 
sanctioning  bodies  will  move  the  fight  to  a  more  compliant  jurisdic- 
tion, together  with  the  badly-needed  boxing  revenue. 

In  certain  instances,  the  relationships  between  State  regulators 
and  the  sanctioning  bodies  border  on  the  incestuous.  We  found  ex- 
amples of  State  regulatory  officials  having  served  as  officials  of  the 
sanctioning  bodies.  This  involves  not  only  making  decisions  on 
sanctioning  body  policies  but  also  serving  as  sanctioning  body  su- 
pervisors for  world  title  fights,  which  afford  the  officials  first-class 
travel  paid  for  by  the  promoter. 

In  Nevada,  State  boxing  authorities  customarily  help  the  sanc- 
tioning bodies  collect  their  sanction  fees  by  deducting  them  from 
the  boxers'  checks,  despite  the  absence  of  any  apparent  legal  au- 
thority to  do  so. 

In  addition,  the  sanctioning  bodies  command  exorbitant  sanction 
fees  from  boxers  without  providing  an  adequate  accounting  of  what 
they  do  with  this  money.  For  example,  former  heavyweight  cham- 
pion Evander  Holyfield  testified  that  for  his  title  fight  against 
Larry  Holmes,  he  alone  paid  the  sanctioning  bodies  $590,000,  and 
then  on  top  of  that  had  to  pay  for  his  championship  belt. 

Rankings  in  many  sports  are  highly  subjective,  but  we  found 
them  to  be  particularly  so  in  boxing,  where  alliances  between 
boxing  promoters  and  sanctioning  bodies  result  in  the  manipula- 
tion of  rankings,  rather  than  having  the  rankings  determined  by 
what  happens  inside  the  ring. 

We  also  found  that  the  inability  of  individual  State  boxing  regu- 
lators to  enforce  their  rules  beyond  their  own  state's  borders  has 
generally  rendered  ineffective  the  rules  of  States  which  have  adopt- 
ed professional  boxing  regulations.  This  is  particularly  apparent 
with  regard  to  efforts  to  regulate  business  relations  among  boxers, 
managers,  and  promoters,  who  use  multiple  contracts  to  evade  spe- 
cific State  regulatory  requirements. 

One  such  example  involves  Nevada's  rule  prohibiting  multiple- 
option  contracts.  That  rule  is  evaded  by  simply  filing  one  contract 
in  Nevada  without  options  while  another  real  contract  for  the  fight 
is  signed  in  another  State  which  includes  multiple  options. 

Boxing  is  replete  with  conflict  of  interest  situations  at  all  levels 
involving  promoters,  managers,  and  boxers.  Generally,  promoters 
are  responsible  for  putting  the  fight  card  together.  Promoters 
assume  the  financial  risk  and  try  to  pay  boxers  as  little  as  possible 
in  order  to  maximize  their  profits.  On  the  other  hand,  the  manager 
is  responsible  for  representing  the  boxer's  interest  and  presumably 
will  try  to  get  the  boxer  the  best  possible  deal  from  the  promoter. 
Thus,  a  manager  and  a  promoter  should  maintain  an  arm's-length 
relationship. 

Where  these  relationships  are  compromised  by  conflicts  of  inter- 
est, it  is  the  boxer  who  is  disadvantaged.  When  State  regulations 
exist  to  prohibit  such  conflicts,  they  typically  are  not  enforced. 


18 

Perhaps  the  most  important  area  in  which  the  current  system  of 
State  regulation  of  professional  boxing  has  proven  ineffective  is 
protection  of  the  health  and  safety  of  boxers.  This  morning  we  will 
hear  from  a  distinguished  panel  of  boxing  physicians  who  will  dis- 
cuss this  subject  in  detail. 

Generally  boxers  enjoy  few,  if  any,  of  the  protections  and  bene- 
fits accorded  other  professional  athletes.  As  has  been  discussed  al- 
ready this  morning,  boxers  have  no  unions  which  negotiate  safety 
issues,  very  limited  if  any  health  insurance  coverage,  and  a  paucity 
of  pension  plans. 

The  patchwork  system  of  State  regulation  of  professional  boxing 
results  in  wide  variations  from  State  to  State,  both  in  health  and 
safety  rules  themselves  and  in  the  enforcement  of  those  rules.  As  a 
result,  again,  it  is  the  boxer  who  suffers. 

Boxers'  health  and  safety  are  endangered  through  gross  mis- 
matches between  boxers  of  unequal  ability,  failure  to  enforce 
health  and  safety  related  suspensions  from  one  jurisdiction  to  an- 
other, absence  of  uniform  drug  testing  standards,  and  gaps  in  en- 
forcement of  health  and  safety  standards  under  the  current  frag- 
mented regulatory  system. 

Not  only  do  the  various  suspension  standards  vary  greatly 
among  the  States,  but  due  to  limited  communication  among  the 
various  State  boxing  authorities,  boxers  suspended  in  one  State  can 
often  subsequently  be  found  boxing  in  another  state. 

Another  health  and  safety  issue  which  the  current  system  of 
State  regulation  does  not  effectively  address  is  testing  for  drugs. 
Drug  testing  varies  widely  among  the  States  and  no  State  tests  for 
steroids. 

States  also  vary  widely  in  the  pre-fight  medical  exams  required 
of  boxers.  New  York  is  perhaps  the  most  thorough,  requiring  an 
EEG,  EKG,  CAT  scan,  and  dilated  eye  exam  by  an  ophthalmologist. 
Clearly,  however,  it  is  expensive  to  run  such  a  battery  of  tests  on 
all  boxers. 

However,  there  are  other  areas  where  ineffective  State  regula- 
tion is  not  a  matter  of  lack  of  finances.  For  example,  although 
Nevada  is  a  State  which  is  generally  regarded  as  having  strict  med- 
ical requirements — for  example,  Nevada  was  the  first  State  to  con- 
duct mandatory  AIDS  testing  for  boxers — yet  a  ring  physician  in 
Nevada  is  not  permitted  to  stop  a  fight  as  the  ring  physician  has 
the  authority  to  do  in  some  other  States.  Most  medical  experts  be- 
lieve the  ring  physician  should  have  authority  to  stop  a  fight. 

Finally,  in  the  boxing  business  today,  television  provides  the 
largest  source  of  revenue  for  high-profile  professional  boxing 
matches.  There  are  four  different  types  of  television  which  pro- 
gram professional  boxing:  free  TV,  non-subscription  cable,  subscrip- 
tion cable,  and  pay-per-view. 

Historically,  the  major  television  networks,  the  primary  compo- 
nents of  free  TV,  have  played  the  largest  role  in  boxing.  In  recent 
years,  however,  cable  TV  and  pay-per-view  have  come  to  play  the 
more  dominant  role. 

We  will  hear  today  from  representatives  of  two  cable  television 
networks  who  will  discuss  this  area  in  detail,  so  let  me  just  provide 
some  background.  Free  TV  refers  primarily  to  the  three  major  tele- 
vision networks,  ABC,  CBS,  and  NBC.  Up  through  the  mid-1980s, 


19 

the  networks  were  still  heavily  involved  in  airing  professional 
boxing.  As  recently  as  1989,  there  were  approximately  40  to  50 
fight  shows  on  free  TV,  15  to  18  on  NBC  and  12  to  20  each  on  ABC 
and  CBS.  But  in  more  recent  years,  free  TV  has  substantially  aban- 
doned the  televising  of  professional  boxing.  Only  ABC  has  plans  to 
include  boxing  on  its  current  programming  schedule. 

The  primary  national  non-subscription  cable  networks  which 
televise  boxing  are  ESPN  and  USA  Network,  but  there  are  also  re- 
gional networks  like  the  Madison  Square  Garden  Network  and 
Prime,  a  network  of  regional  sports  cable  stations.  Both  ESPN  and 
USA  show  approximately  40  boxing  shows  per  year,  substantially 
more  than  any  other  television  outlets.  However,  they  have  a  more 
limited  audience  than  free  TV  and  they  pay  substantially  less  than 
premium  cable,  so  they  tend  to  televise  less  well-known  boxers  in 
less  well-known  locations. 

The  major  subscription  cable  networks  are  Home  Box  Office, 
HBO,  and  Showtime.  Both  of  these  networks  are  so-called  premium 
cable  channels,  which  mean  they  rely  on  subscriber  revenue  rather 
than  advertising.  Each  network  also  has  to  market  itself  every 
month  to  ensure  subscribers  do  not  cancel  their  subscriptions. 

HBO  does  an  average  of  eight  to  ten  and  Showtime  an  average  of 
six  to  eight  boxing  shows  per  year.  It  is  not  unusual  for  HBO  to 
pay  $1  million  or  more  for  particular  fights.  HBO  is  thought  to  pay 
substantially  more  than  other  television  networks,  making  an  HBO 
appearance  a  highly-sought  goal  for  most  boxers. 

The  most  significant  pay-per-view  entities  involved  in  profession- 
al boxing  are  TVKO,  which,  like  HBO,  is  a  subsidiary  of  Time 
Warner,  and  SET,  which  is  owned  by  Showtime.  The  pay-per-view 
entities  have  substantially  superceded  closed  circuit  as  the  pre- 
ferred technology  for  showing  specific  events  to  home  viewers. 

Most  television  networks  generally  do  not  get  involved  in  actual- 
ly putting  a  boxing  match  together.  That  is  left  to  the  promoter. 
Time  Warner  Sports,  who  we  will  hear  from  today,  does  things  dif- 
ferently, playing  a  much  more  active  role  in  arranging  particular 
match-ups  which  they  think  will  be  attractive,  entering  into  con- 
tracts directly  with  boxers,  requiring  exclusive  contracts,  and  en- 
tering into  multiple-fight  contracts. 

Sports  Illustrated  called  Time  Warner  Sports  President  Seth 
Abraham  "the  heaviest  hitter  in  the  world  of  professional  boxing," 
and  claimed,  "that  he  controls  to  a  large  degree  the  colorful  busi- 
ness of  boxing."  Mr.  Abraham  demurred  from  this  description,  but 
while  no  television  network  is  licensed  as  a  boxing  promoter,  Time 
Warner  Sports  arguably  comes  closer  to  acting  as  a  promoter  than 
any  other  network  and  is  generally  considered  to  be  the  major  fi- 
nancial influence  in  big-time  professional  boxing  today. 

In  summary,  the  current  system  of  state-based  regulation  of  pro- 
fessional boxing  is  ineffective  in  protecting  the  health,  safety,  or  fi- 
nancial interests  of  professional  boxers.  Any  effort  to  improve  pro- 
fessional boxing  must  include  reforming  the  current  regulatory 
system. 

Thank  you,  and  we  will  be  happy  to  answer  any  questions  you 
have. 


20 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Levin,  what  would  you  say  is  the  primary 
reason  why  the  current  state-based  regulatory  system  is  ineffec- 
tive? 

Mr.  Levin.  Senator  Roth,  as  has  been  addressed  this  morning,  I 
think  the  primary  reasons  are  a  lack  of  uniform  standards  and  in- 
effective enforcement  of  those  standards  which  are  currently  in 
place.  Those  are  the  two  big  problems. 

Senator  Roth.  What  purpose  do  State  license  requirements 
serve? 

Mr.  Levin.  The  State  licensure  requirements  are  implemented  to 
protect  the  integrity  of  the  sport  by  giving  the  State  regulators  the 
ability  to  deny  entry  to  those  people  who  would  be  detrimental  to 
the  sport.  Therefore,  ineffective  enforcement  of  those  standards 
really  results  to  the  detriment  of  boxing. 

Senator  Roth.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question  about  the  sanctioning 
bodies,  WBC,  WBA,  IBF,  as  well  as  the  others.  Why  are  the  States 
unable  to  effectively  regulate  the  sanctioning  bodies?  Why  don't 
the  State  regulatory  agencies  simply  tell  them  they  are  the  boss? 

Mr.  Levin.  The  primary  reason  for  that,  Senator,  is  that  the 
sanctioning  bodies  will  threaten  to  withdraw  their  sanction,  cancel 
the  fight,  and  move  it  to  another  State  which  will  be  less  strict  in 
its  regulation,  thereby  the  State  risks  losing  the  boxing  revenue 
from  that  fight. 

Senator  Roth.  How  important  is  the  role  of  the  sanctioning 
bodies?  What  else  do  they  do  besides  creating  titles  and  sanctioning 
contests  for  these  titles? 

Mr.  Levin.  Their  other  primary  purpose,  as  has  been  discussed 
this  morning,  is  that  of  ranking  boxers.  So  the  ranking  of  boxers 
and  the  sanctioning  of  the  title  fights  are  the  two  primary  purposes 
that  the  sanctioning  bodies  serve. 

Senator  Roth.  Senator  McCain. 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

In  the  last  hearing  that  was  held,  there  was  a  lot  of  addressing  of 
the  corruption  issue.  Have  you  any  additional  information  since 
that  hearing  that  you  would  like  to  share  for  the  record? 

Mr.  Levin.  Senator  McCain,  we  have  continued  to  pursue  that, 
and  in  fact  the  subsequent  hearings  that  are  planned  will  focus  pri- 
marily on  that  aspect. 

Senator  McCain.  I  see.  So  you  feel  that,  because  I  was  reviewing 
the  record  of  the  previous  hearings  and  obviously  there  were  some 
areas  out  there  that  needed  to  be  pursued,  at  least  from  my  read- 
ing of  it,  and  I  am  glad  that  we  intend  to  continue  on  that  track.  I 
think  probably  that  is  one  of  the  fundamental  issues  that  we  have 
to  address  here. 

Do  you  agree,  Mr.  Lord? 

Mr.  Lord.  Yes,  Senator  McCain.  I  think  at  our  next  hearing  we 
are  going  to  follow  up  on  some  of  the  leads  that  we  uncovered  at 
the  August  hearings,  try  to  close  in  on  some  of  those. 

Senator  McCain.  May  I  just  ask  both  of  you,  because  you  have 
been  very  involved  in  it,  what  kind  of  resistance  are  you  seeing  to 
Senator  Roth's  legislation  that  we  might  want  to  address  in  the 
course  of  these  hearings? 

Mr.  Levin.  I  think  we  have  heard  from  a  lot  of  people  who  say  in 
general  terms  that  they  support  the  notion  of  reforming  boxing. 


21 

The  problem  occurs  when  you  try  to  get  into  the  specifics  of  what 
type  of  reforms  you  are  trying  to  institute. 

Senator  McCain.  Is  there  resistance  to  a  National  Boxing  Com- 
mission per  se?  For  example,  are  you  hearing  from  the  States, 
saying  that  you  are  going  to  erode  their  authority  and  responsibil- 
ities? 

Mr.  Levin.  We  certainly  hear  that  from  some  States.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  also  hear  from  other  States  that  they  welcome  the 
type  of  approach  that  we  are  taking  which  would,  and  I  want  to 
emphasize  this,  would  not  eliminate  the  State  commissions  but 
would  utilize  the  State  commissions  as  they  are  currently  struc- 
tured but  just  strengthen  them. 

Senator  McCain.  Does  the  issue,  and  again,  it  probably  is  for  fur- 
ther hearings,  but  does  the  issue  of  one  promoter  or  a  very  small 
number  of  promoters  basically  controlling  the  major  fights  in 
boxing  concern  you? 

Mr.  Levin.  It  is  certainly  an  area  of  concern  any  time  you  have  a 
large  amount  of  power  concentrated  in  a  small  number  of  hands. 

Senator  McCain.  Have  you  found  that  to  be  the  case? 

Mr.  Levin.  That  is  certainly  true  in  boxing  today. 

Senator  McCain.  Which  then  leads  to  a  basic  unfairness,  because 
if  you  don't  have  the  right  promoter/ manager  or  combination,  then 
your  opportunities  are  dramatically  limited.  I  think  we  have  cases 
of  that.  I  hope  in  subsequent  hearings  we  can  point  out  some 
graphic  examples  of  outstanding  boxers  who  have  been  unable  to 
have  the  opportunity  for  the  kinds  of  money  and  titles  that  other 
fighters  have  gained  more  easily  simply  because  they  were  not  con- 
nected properly. 

I  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Senator. 

I  apologize,  Senator  Dorgan. 

Senator  Dorgan.  No  problem.  Thank  you  very  much. 

In  testimony  that  we  will  receive  shortly  from  a  physician,  he  de- 
scribes a  material  that  is  now  used  under  the  ring  apron  and  I 
think  also  in  boxing  gloves  that  has,  he  says,  substantially  reduced 
the  incidence  of  deaths  from  boxers  who  hit  their  head  on  the  ring 
apron  upon  being  knocked  out.  His  point  is  that  most  knockouts 
don't  result  in  deaths.  To  the  extent  that  there  are  deaths  in 
boxing,  it  is  not  from  the  blow  to  the  head,  it  is  from  the  blow  of 
the  head  to  the  canvas. 

This  material  that  is  used — and  I  don't  recall  the  name — is  that 
widely  used?  Is  it  something  that  most  States  have  adopted  for  use 
in  the  ring? 

Mr.  Levin.  I  think  you  are  referring  to  Ensolite,  and  it  is  used  in 
a  number  of  States.  Again,  because  of  the  lack  of  uniform  stand- 
ards, it  is  not  used  in  all  States  either  for  the  mats  or  for  the 
gloves. 

Senator  Dorgan.  So  even  though  there  is  a  demonstrated  safety 
component,  it  is  not  now  required  for  use  and  is  not  being  used  in 
all  states? 

Mr.  Levin.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Dorgan.  I  think  we  will  have  some  testimony  on  the  in- 
cidence of  death  in  the  sport  of  boxing  later  on.  The  sport  of  boxing 


22 

is  not  the  most  dangerous  sport  in  America.  Can  you  just  respond 
to  that? 

Mr.  Levin.  That  is  correct,  and  in  fact,  the  panel  of  physicians 
that  will  follow  will  go  into  greater  detail,  but  boxing  today  ranks 
lower  even  than  college  football  in  terms  of  the  number  of  fatali- 
ties. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Mr.  Chairman,  let  me  just  finally — and  I  appre- 
ciate the  testimony  from  the  staff,  it  was  very  useful  and  interest- 
ing— to  describe,  as  I  said  earlier,  that  boxing  is  indeed  a  sport,  and 
I  think  an  interesting  and  a  good  sport. 

We  speak  of  young  men.  This  is  not  only  a  young  man's  sport. 
There  is  a  fellow  in  the  audience,  and  I  will  embarrass  him,  I  am 
sure.  To  demonstrate  this  point,  I  turned  on  my  television  set  one 
Saturday  to  the  National  network  sports  program.  There  was  a 
boxing  match  going  on — I  believe  in  the  Senior  Olympics — and  I 
saw  this  older  white-haired  fellow  in  the  ring  boxing.  It  turned  out 
to  be  an  employee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  Jim  Baluke- 
vich,  who  is  here  in  the  back  of  the  room,  and  he  demonstrated  to 
me  on  Saturday  that  it  is  not  just  a  young  man's  sport. 

Jim,  you  might  just  wave  for  the  Chairman,  if  you  don't  mind. 

[Applause.] 

Senator  Dorgan.  My  point  is  that  if  Jim  Balukevich  a  couple  of 
years  ago  was  boxing  on  national  television,  it  is  a  sport — not  just  a 
young  man's  sport,  but  a  good  sport  that  all  of  us  want  to  make 
better  and  improve.  And  that  is  the  purpose  of  this  hearing. 

Jim,  I  hope  I  didn't  embarrass  you  with  that. 

I  thank  the  staff  for  the  testimony  and  look  forward  to  the  testi- 
mony from  the  next  panel. 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  thank  you,  Senator  Dorgan. 

I  want  to  welcome  Jim  here.  He  gives  us  all  hope  for  the  future. 

I  do  want  to  introduce  at  this  time  the  full  statement  of  the  staff 
on  "Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  Inadequate  State  Regula- 
tion," and  will  so  introduce  without  objection. 

[The  prepared  statement  of  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  In- 
vestigations staff  follows:] 

CORRUPTION  IN  PROFESSIONAL  BOXING— PART  II 

INADEQUATE  STATE  REGULATION 

PERMANENT  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS  1 

Introduction  and  Overview 

Thirty  years  ago,  a  Senate  inquiry  into  professional  boxing  concluded  that  if  the 
industry  was  not  cleaned  up  it  should  be  abolished.2  After  an  extensive  year-long 
investigation,  we  conclude  that  many  of  the  problems  existing  within  the  boxing  in- 
dustry three  decades  ago  still  remain. 

Can  boxing  survive?  One  State  boxing  regulator  testified  before  the  Subcommittee 
that  if  boxing  is  not  better  regulated  there  would  be  no  need  to  abolish  it  because, 
"[i]t  would  simply  die  a  natural  death."  3  We  believe  boxing  can  be  saved,  but  it  will 
require  major  alterations  of  the  current  regulatory  system. 


1  This  staff  statement  was  prepared  by  the  Minority  Staff  of  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on 
Investigations  of  the  Governmental  Affairs  Committee  of  the  U.S.  Senate. 

2  Kefauver,  Senator  Estes,  Congressional  Record,  v.  109,  March  29,  1963,  p.  S  4786. 

3  Testimony  of  Larry  Hazzard,  Sr.,  Commissioner,  New  Jersey  Athletic  Control  Commission, 
U.S.  Senate  Committee  on  Governmental  Affairs,  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations, 

Continued 


23 

The  minority  staff  of  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations  began  the 
current  investigation  of  professional  boxing  with  an  inquiry  into  the  controversial 
February  8,  1992  International  Boxing  Federation  middleweight  title  fight  between 
David  Tiberi  and  James  Toney.  That  initial  inquiry  culminated  with  a  report  insert- 
ed by  Senator  William  V.  Roth,  Jr.,  Ranking  Minority  Member,  into  the  Congres- 
sional Record  on  April  28,  1992. 

The  report  on  the  Toney-Tiberi  matter  found  that  Dave  Tiberi  had  been  a  victim 
of  a  system  where  the  regulated  have  been  allowed  to  rule  the  regulators.  While  the 
State  of  New  Jersey  has  a  superficially  adequate  boxing  regulatory  structure,  those 
regulations  were  not  enforced  in  the  Toney-Tiberi  match.  Rather,  powerful  private 
interests,  including  sanctioning  bodies  and  promoters,  exercised  undue  influence 
and  control  with  regard  to  the  Toney-Tiberi  match. 

The  inquiry  into  the  Toney-Tiberi  matter  also  revealed  other  more  broad-based, 
systemic  problems  affecting  professional  boxing,  including:  financial  exploitation  of 
boxers;  conflicts  of  interest;  inadequate,  ineffective  and  non-uniform  enforcement  of 
health  and  safety  regulations;  implicit  and  explicit  corruption;  and  continued  influ- 
ence of  organized  crime.  Substantial  evidence  of  these  and  other  problems  mandated 
a  full  scale  investigation  of  the  professional  boxing  industry. 

The  investigation  looked  at  all  of  the  major  aspects  of  the  boxing  industry.  Geo- 
graphically, the  investigation  concentrated  on  New  Jersey  and  Nevada — the  two 
States  with  the  majority  of  title  bouts;  the  traditional  boxing  center  of  New  York; 
California,  the  State  with  the  most  boxing  matches;  and  several  other  States  reput- 
ed to  have  particularly  ineffective  boxing  regulation. 

On  August  11  and  12,  1992,  the  Subcommittee  held  two  days  of  public  hearings  on 
corruption  in  professional  boxing.  Those  testifying  included  three  professional 
boxers,  three  current  and  one  former  State  boxing  commissioners,  a  panel  of  ex- 
perts, a  major  promoter,  sanctioning  body  representatives,  as  well  as  other  wit- 
nesses who  testified  concerning  organized  crime  involvement  and  corruption  in  pro- 
fessional boxing.  Subsequent  to  those  hearings,  additional  depositions  and  inter- 
views were  taken,  including  those  of  knowledgeable  television  executives.  The  major 
findings  of  the  investigation  are  summarized  in  this  interim  report. 

Previous  Congressional  Boxing  Investigations 

The  Senate  last  looked  into  corruption  in  professional  boxing  some  30  years  ago. 
Between  1960  and  1964,  the  Senate  Subcommittee  on  Antitrust  and  Monopoly, 
chaired  by  Senator  Estes  Kefauver,  conducted  an  extensive  investigation  of  the 
boxing  industry.4  Senator  Kefauver  concluded  that  those  hearings,  "showed  beyond 
any  doubt  that  professional  boxing  has  had  too  many  connections  with  the  under- 
world. Nothing  has  taken  place  to  indicate  that  professional  boxing  ever  will,  on  its 
own  initiative,  free  itself  from  control  by  racketeers  and  other  undesirables  ...  if 
strong  measures  are  not  taken  to  clean  up  boxing  then  it  should  be  abolished."  5 
The  strong  measures  referred  to  by  Senator  Kefauver  included  legislation  that  he 
introduced  in  1961  and  1963  to  provide  a  Federal  role  in  the  regulation  of  boxing. 
These  bills,  S.1474  (87th  Congress)  and  S.1182  (88th  Congress)  would  have  estab- 
lished within  the  Department  of  Justice  a  United  States  Boxing  Commission  to  set 
minimum  standards  for  the  regulation  of  boxing. 

Senator  Clair  Engle,  a  co-sponsor  of  Senator  Kefauver's  legislation,  based  his  rea- 
sons for  supporting  Federal  intervention  in  professional  boxing  largely  on  the  inad- 
equacy of  State  control.  Senator  Engle  stated,  "The  States  cannot  handle  this  sport 
properly.  I  do  not  want  to  leave  the  impression  that  the  States  and  their  boxing 
commissions  have  not  tried  to  clean  up  boxing.  They  have  made  valiant  attempts  to 
do  so.  But  their  efforts  have  usually  terminated  in  a  dead  end."  Engle  went  on  to 
state  that  the  problem  "is  that  they  are  stymied  by  the  interstate  aspects  of  the 
business.  Subpoena  powers  of  local  commissioners  stop  at  State  borders.  A  boxer  not 
permitted  to  fight  in  one  city  can  pull  up  stakes  and  go  into  another  city  in  another 
State.  .  .  ."  6 


Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  102d  Congress,  2d  Session,  August  11  and  12, 
1992,  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11 
and  12,  1992")  p.  56. 

4  U.S.  Congress,  Senate  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  Subcommittee  on  Antitrust  and  Monopo- 
ly, Hearings  on  Professional  Boxing,  86th  Congress,  2d  Session,  June  14  and  15,  and  December  5, 
6,  7,  8,  9,  12,  13  and  14,  1960,  and  87th  Congress,  1st  Session,  May  31,  June  1  and  2,  1961. 

5  Congressional  Record,  v.  109,  March  25,  1963,  p.  S  4786. 

6  Congressional  Record,  v.  109,  March  28,  1963,  p.  S  5031. 


24 

Senator  Kefauver's  legislation  did  not  become  law  due  to  his  untimely  death. 
However,  as  a  result  of  the  Kefauver  hearings,  in  1964  Congress  did  enact  P.L.  88- 
316  which  made  bribery  in  a  sporting  contest  a  Federal  crime.7 

In  noting  the  past  Congressional  activity  concerning  problems  in  professional 
boxing,  Senator  Roth  asked  rhetorically  at  the  Subcommittee's  August,  1992  hear- 
ing, "[w]hat  has  changed  in  the  last  32  years?"  The  answer,  unfortunately,  is  very 
little.  Senator  Roth  added  that,  "Boxing  has  had  a  very  long  time  to  reform  itself 
voluntarily.  It  has  not  done  so." 

During  those  hearings,  Subcommittee  Chairman,  Senator  Sam  Nunn,  observed, 
"Most  States  have  boxing  commissions  and  specific  licensing  requirements  for 
boxers,  boxing  referees  and  boxing  officials.  However,  as  the  Subcommittee  staff  has 
learned,  the  rules  are  sometimes  bent  or  broken,  with  few  questions  asked." 

History  of  Boxing  Regulation 

Boxing  in  the  United  States  during  the  19th  Century  was  not  regulated  by  any 
governmental  entity.  The  written  Marquess  of  Queensberry  rules,  which  had  been 
adopted  in  England  in  1860,  were  usually  followed  in  boxing  contests  in  the  United 
States  after  1880.  These  rules  limited  the  length  of  rounds  to  three  minutes  (while 
allowing  an  unlimited  number  of  rounds),  established  a  one  minute  rest  period  be- 
tween rounds,  required  a  ten  second  waiting  period  following  a  knockdown,  prohibit- 
ed wrestling,  and  introduced  the  compulsory  wearing  of  boxing  gloves.  It  should  be 
noted,  however,  that  these  gloves  were  intended  to  protect  the  boxer's  hands,  and 
not  his  opponent's  head,  from  injury.8 

Employment  of  the  Queensberry  rules  did  not  prevent  injuries  to  boxers  or  unsa- 
vory activities  that  often  accompanied  boxing.  For  these  reasons,  during  the  late 
1890s  there  were  movements  in  several  States  to  ban  the  sport.  Despite  these  bans, 
the  sport  continued.  Resourceful  promoters  were  known  to  stage  boxing  events  in 
barns,  open  fields  and  even  on  river  barges  and  boats.  Boxing  events  also  continued 
to  be  held  in  those  States  where  boxing  had  not  been  outlawed.9 

In  1920,  upon  passage  of  the  Walker  Law,  New  York  State  became  the  first  gov- 
ernmental entity  to  regulate  boxing  in  the  United  States.10  In  1924,  the  State  of 
California,  by  way  of  a  statewide  referendum,  legalized  boxing.  California,  like  New 
York,  established  a  State  Athletic  Commission  to  regulate  and  monitor  the  sport's 
activities.  Over  time,  42  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia  legalized  professional 
boxing  and  established  State  regulatory  commissions,  many  modeled  after  the  New 
York  Commission. x  1 

Although  boxing  in  the  United  States  was  very  popular  during  the  period  from 
1920  to  1950,  there  were  continued  signs  that  the  State  regulatory  structure  was  in- 
adequate. In  March  1957  a  federal  court  ruled  that  boxing's  "king  pin,"  promoter 


7  78  Stat.  203-204. 

In  1977,  the  House  Subcommittee  on  Communications  conducted  hearings  on  television's 
sports  broadcasting  practices.  These  hearings  looked  into  alleged  corrupt  practices  involving  the 
joint  Don  King  Productions,  Inc.  and  American  Broadcasting  Company's  production  of  the  "U.S. 
Boxing  Championship."  U.S.  Congress,  House  Committee  on  Interstate  and  Foreign  Commerce, 
Subcommittee  on  Communications,  Hearings  on  Network  Sports  Practices,  95th  Congress,  1st 
Session,  October  3,  and  November  2  and  3,  1977. 

The  House  has  also  held  the  following  hearings  on  professional  boxing  reform,  including 
health  and  safety  issues: 

U.S.  Congress,  House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,  Subcommittee  on  Labor  Standards, 
Hearings  on  the  Creation  of  a  Federal  Boxing  Control  Board,  96th  Congress,  1st  Session,  March 
28,  29,  and  April  3,  1979; 

U.S.  Congress,  House  Committee  on  Energy  and  Commerce,  Subcommittee  on  Commerce, 
Transportation,  and  Tourism,  Hearings  on  Boxing  Reform,  98th  Congress,  1st  Session,  February 
15,  and  March  18,  1983; 

U.S.  Congress,  House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,  Subcommittee  on  Labor  Standards, 
Hearings  on  H.R.  1951,  98th  Congress,  1st  Session,  May  5,  1983;  and 

U.S.  Congress,  House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor.  Subcommittee  on  Labor  Standards, 
Hearings  on  H.R.  1689,  the  American  Boxing  Corporation  Act,  May  30,  1985,  99th  Congress,  1st 
Session,  May  30,  1985. 

8  Arlott,  John,  editor,  The  Oxford  Companion  to  World  Sports  and  Games,  Oxford  University 
Press,  London,  1975,  p.  112. 

9  Spears,  Betty  and  Swanson,  Richard  A.,  History  of  Sport  and  Physical  Activity  in  the  United 
State's,  W.M.C.  Brown  and  Company,  Dubuque,  Iowa,  2d  edition,  1983,  p.  154. 

10  Welch,  Paula  D.,  and  Harold  A.  Lerch,  History  of  American  Physical  Education  and  Sport. 
Charles  C.  Thomas,  Chicago,  1981,  p.  48. 

1 '  Galemore,  Gary  L.,  Administration  of  Boxing:  History  and  Regulatory  Issues,  the  Library  of 
Congress,  Congressional  Research  Service,  Government  Division,  September  18,  1985,  p.  6,  Ex- 
hibit 45  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


25 

and  matchmaker  James  P.  Norris,  had  violated  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Act  by  ille- 
gally cornering  the  market  on  fighters  and  major  fight  promotions.  A  federal  court 
in  California  also  found  organized  crime  figures  Frank  "Blinky"  Palermo  and  Frank 
Carbo,  among  others,  guilty  of  using  extortive  methods  to  attempt  to  control  the 
welterweight  title.12  And  finally,  between  1920  and  1950  at  least  158  professional 
and  amateur  boxers  died  in  the  ring  worldwide.13 

Boxing's  Current  Regulatory  Structure 

The  regulatory  structure  that  Senator  Kefauver  found  inadequate  in  the  1960s  re- 
mains in  place  today.  In  more  than  40  States,  boxing  is  regulated  on  the  State  level. 
Municipal  governments  regulate  boxing  in  several  States  including  North  Carolina 
and  Kansas.  There  is  no  governmental  regulation  of  boxing  in  Colorado,  Oklahoma, 
South  Dakota  and  Wyoming  although  boxing  is  not  illegal  in  those  States.14 

Boxing  commissions  are  typically  given  the  authority,  via  State  enabling  statutes, 
to  regulate  all  aspects  of  professional  boxing  including  such  things  as  scoring,  the 
mandatory  licensing  of  persons  and  entities  associated  with  the  sport,  as  well  as  lim- 
itations on  permissible  contract  terms  between  boxers  and  managers. 

Promoters  and  sanctioning  bodies  can  easily  take  advantage  of  the  many  State 
and  local  regulatory  bodies  because  each  is  effectively  competing  with  one  another 
for  a  limited  number  of  boxing  shows.  Thus  the  promoter  usually  enjoys  a  buyer's 
market  for  boxing  venues.  If  a  State  refuses  to  meet  the  promoter's  demands,  the 
promoter  can  threaten  to  take  his  boxing  show,  with  its  often  substantial  revenues, 
to  another  State.  The  sanctioning  bodies  are  often  able  to  impose  their  will  on  the 
State  commissions  in  a  similar  fashion. 

New  York  State  Boxing  Commissioner  Randy  Gordon  described  the  situation  with 
regard  to  the  sanctioning  bodies  as  follows:  ".  .  .  the  sanctioning  bodies  would,  in 
most  cases,  appoint  the  referee  and  the  three  judges  themselves  over  the  objections 
of  the  State  Athletic  Commissions,  under  whose  jurisdiction  the  bout  was  held.  .  .  . 
It  is  a  game  of  poker.  They  want  to  see  how  many  officials  they  can  get  by,  and  if 
they  can  get  by  with  all  four,  the  referee  and  the  judges,  they  will  do  it."  15  Gordon 
went  on  to  testify  that  in  preparing  for  a  lightweight  championship  being  sanc- 
tioned by  the  WBA,  the  WBA  told  Gordon  that  if  he  did  not  go  along  with  their 
selection  of  judges  there  would  be  no  fight.16  Gordon  testified  that  in  such  situa- 
tions he  was  "more  or  less  handcuffed"  and  likened  the  situation  to  being  "a  home- 
owner whose  house  is  being  robbed  at  gunpoint  by  a  roving  band  of  thugs." 

Some  States,  such  as  Nevada  and  New  Jersey,  have  more  leverage  with  sanction- 
ing bodies  because  the  legal  gambling  casinos  in  those  States  are  often  willing  to 
pay  large  fees,  known  as  "site  fees"  to  promoters  for  high  profile  boxing  contests, 
thus  making  these  States  more  attractive  to  promoters  as  boxing  venues.  Yet  even 
Nevada  and  New  Jersey  frequently  accommodate  the  demands  of  promoters  and 
sanctioning  bodies.  The  New  Jersey  commission  generally  allows  the  IBF  sanction- 
ing bodies  to  select  two  of  the  three  judges  while  Nevada  allows  the  sanctioning 
bodies  to  recommend  three  judges  for  each  position. 

Other  States,  such  as  Ohio,  which  do  not  offer  high  site  fee  venues,  are  even  more 
subject  to  the  pressure  of  promoters  and  sanctioning  bodies.  Ohio  has  between  ten 
and  twenty  professional  boxing  events  each  year.  Most  are  not  televised  and  involve 
substantially  less  purse  money  than  the  televised  fights  with  which  most  boxing 
fans  are  familiar.  While  boxing  in  Ohio  occasionally  involves  big  name  promoters 
and  boxers,  it  more  typically  involves  local,  less  well  known  individuals.  Thus, 
boxing  in  States  like  Ohio  is  out  of  the  spotlight  and  generally  less  well  regulated 
than  even  in  the  inadequately  regulated  big  boxing  States. 

William  Finissi,  a  former  member  of  the  Ohio  boxing  commission,  testified  that 
the  Ohio  commission  was  sometimes  even  willing  to  overlook  criminal  behavior  in 
order  to  encourage  boxing  in  Ohio.  Finissi  testified  that  a  promoter  named  Tom 
Vacca  was  caught  submitting  forged  medical  reports  certifying  the  health  of  boxers 
to  the  State  commission.  The  Ohio  commission  elected  only  to  suspend  Vacca's  li- 
cense rather  than  file  suit  against  him,  as  recommended  by  the  Ohio  Attorney  Gen- 


12  Subcommittee  On  Antitrust  and  Monopoly,  Hearings  on  Professional  Boxing,  86th  Con- 
gress, 2nd  Session.  Washington,  D.C.,  June  14,  1960,  p.  1. 

13  Goldman,  Herbert,  editor,  1984  Record  Book  and  Boxing  Encyclopedia,  Ring  Publishing 
Corp.,  New  York,  1984,  p.  960. 

14  Galemore,  Gary  L.,  Administration  of  Boxing:  History  and  Regulatory  Issues,  the  Library  of 
Congress,  Congressional  Research  Service,  Government  Division,  September  18,  1985,  p.  39,  Ex- 
hibit 45  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

15  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  pp.  52  and  59. 

16  Ibid.,  p.  63. 


65-875  0-93-2 


26 

eral.  The  suspension,  however,  did  not  prevent  Vacca  from  subsequently  participat- 
ing in  a  boxing  show  promoted  by  Don  King  in  Cleveland  in  June,  1992,  according  to 
testimony  of  Finissi. 

While  boxers  themselves  are  generally  required  to  have  some  type  of  medical 
check,  and  promoters  may  be  required  to  show  adequate  financial  resources,  licens- 
ing of  other  boxing  participants  such  as  managers,  matchmakers  and  cornermen,  is 
generally  automatic  subject  to  the  payment  of  the  required  licensing  fee.  State 
boxing  regulators  generally  do  not  inquire  into  either  the  experience  of  boxing  licen- 
sure applicants  or  their  backgrounds.17  The  failure  to  inquire  into  the  backgrounds 
of  boxing  licensure  applicants  is  especially  surprising  due  to  the  long  history  of  or- 
ganized crime's  influence  in  the  sport. 

Boxing  Industry  Practices 

Sanctioning  Bodies 

Among  the  many  factors  which  prevent  the  current  system  of  State  regulation 
from  effectively  governing  professional  boxing  in  the  U.S.,  none  is  more  important 
than  the  existence  of  powerful  international  sanctioning  bodies — the  so-called  "al- 
phabet soup"  organizations.  The  power  of  these  groups  stems  from  their  control  of 
the  most  sought  after  prizes  in  boxing — world  titles.  The  three  most  powerful  sanc- 
tioning bodies  are  the  World  Boxing  Council  (WBC — which  is  based  in  Mexico  and 
headed  by  Jose  Sulaiman),  the  World  Boxing  Association  (WBA — which  is  located  in 
Venezuela  and  headed  by  Gilberto  Mendoza)  and  the  International  Boxing  Federa- 
tion (IBF — which  is  located  in  New  Jersey  and  headed  by  Bob  Lee).  The  WBC  and 
WBA  are  organized  as  non-profit  business  leagues  within  the  U.S.  while  the  IBF  is  a 
domestic  for-profit  corporation. 

The  proliferation  of  sanctioning  bodies  began  in  the  1960s,  primarily  because  of 
the  economic  value  of  world  titles,  particularly  to  television.  Previously,  the  New 
York-based  National  Boxing  Association  was  the  lone  sanctioning  body  which  deter- 
mined rankings  and  title-holders  in  what  then  were  only  eight  weight  groups.  Cur- 
rently, each  of  the  major  sanctioning  bodies  has  17  weight  groups,  resulting  in  51 
possible  world  titles.  (This  total  does  not  include  titles  bestowed  by  several  less  well 
known  sanctioning  bodies,  nor  does  it  include  national  or  regional  titles.)  While  the 
proliferation  of  world  titles  has  clearly  led  to  increased  sanctioning  fees  collected  by 
sanctioning  bodies  (and  arguably  to  greater  opportunities  for  public  recognition  for 
more  boxers),  it  has  also  been  widely  criticized  as  leading  to  widespread  confusion 
and  dilution  of  the  value  of  championships  in  professional  boxing. 

Sanctioning  bodies,  which  authorize  world  championship  contests,  rank  boxers 
who  are  eligible  for  such  contests,  establish  rules  for  the  contests,  and  claim  author- 
ity to  designate  contest  officials,  are  self  appointed  entities.  While  theoretically  sub- 
ject to  control  by  State  regulatory  agencies,  as  explained  earlier,  sanctioning  bodies 
are  frequently  able  to  impose  their  own  desires.  In  exchange  for  sanctioning  a 
match,  the  sanctioning  body  collects  a  sanction  fee  from  each  of  the  boxers.  Each 
sanctioning  body  has  its  own  rules  as  to  how  this  fee  is  determined,  but  typically  it 
is  a  percentage  of  each  boxer's  purse.18 

In  the  case  of  major  world  title  fights,  sanctioning  fees  can  amount  to  large  sums 
of  money.  For  example,  former  heavyweight  champion,  Evander  Holyfield,  testified 
that  for  his  title  fight  against  Larry  Holmes  on  June  19,  1992,  he  paid  the  WBC  a 
sanction  fee  of  $290,000,  nearly  twice  the  $150,000  sanction  fee  he  paid  to  both  the 
WBA  and  the  IBF  for  that  fight.  (Because  Holyfield  was  the  "unified"  heavyweight 
champion,  i.e.,  he  held  the  titles  of  each  of  the  three  major  sanctioning  organiza- 
tions, he  was  required  to  pay  a  sanction  fee  to  each  organization  because  each  of 
their  respective  heavyweight  titles  was  on  the  line  in  that  fight.)  From  Holyfield 
alone  in  that  fight,  the  sanctioning  bodies  collected  $590,000. 19  When  asked  what 


17  See  testimony  of  Larry  Hazzard,  Sr.,  Commissioner,  New  Jersey  State  Athletic  Control 
Commission,  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  77; 
and  testimony  of  Marc  Ratner,  Chief  Inspector,  Nevada  Athletic  Commission,  during  deposition 
of  Dr.  Elias  Ghanem,  Chairman,  Nevada  Athletic  Commission,  p.  24,  Exhibit  11. 

18  Each  sanctioning  body  also  collects  a  sanction  fee  from  the  promoter  for  each  fight,  as  well 
as  dues  from  its  members;  however,  the  boxers'  sanction  fees  comprise  the  majority  of  these 
groups'  revenue. 

19  Jose  Sulaiman,  during  the  Subcommittee's  hearings  on  August  12,  1992,  asserted  that  the 
WBC  recently  changed  the  way  it  calculates  its  sanction  fee.  Previously,  the  WBC  collected  a 
flat  3  percent  of  both  the  champion's  and  challenger's  purse.  However,  Sulaiman  said  that  has 
been  changed  so  that  the  WBC  gets  3  percent  of  the  first  $3  million  of  a  boxer's  purse,  2  percent 

Continued 


27 

the  sanctioning  bodies  do  in  return  for  these  sanctioning  fees  (other  than  rank 
boxers),  Holyfield  testified,  "I  can't  recall  them  doing  anything  but  showing  up  and 
having  judges  to  judge  the  fight;"  noting  that  the  boxer,  if  he  wins  a  title,  even  has 
to  pay  for  his  own  championship  belt.20 

As  the  purse  amounts  for  major  world  title  fights  continue  to  increase,  so  do  the 
fees  collected  by  the  sanctioning  bodies.  According  to  the  WBC's  recent  tax  records, 
the  group's  income  over  the  last  three  years  averaged  between  $1-2  million  annual- 
ly. Most  of  this  revenue  comes  from  sanction  fees  paid  by  boxers. 

Sulaiman  testified  at  the  Subcommittee's  August  hearing  that  the  WBC  does 
much  to  promote  the  interests  of  boxing.  He  cited  contributions  the  WBC  has  made 
to  UCLA  for  neurological  research  involving  boxing.  However,  the  amount  contrib- 
uted by  the  WBC  to  this  program  was  unclear.  Sulaiman  claimed  the  WBC  contrib- 
uted more  than  $500,000,  while  UCLA  advised  the  Subcommittee  that  it  only  had 
record  of  $290,000  in  contributions.21  Sulaiman  also  asserted  that  the  WBC  had  es- 
tablished the  Friendly  Hand  Foundation,  a  boxers'  benevolent  group  which  he  as- 
serted helps  former  boxers  and  their  families  with  medical,  living  and  funeral  ex- 
penses. 

Control  of  Rules  and  Officials 

The  sanctioning  bodies  attempt  to  regulate  most  aspects  of  the  title  fights  they 
sanction.  Frequently,  they  are  successful  despite  the  fact  that  State  boxing  regula- 
tors are  charged  by  law  with  the  responsibility  of  regulating  boxing.  Generally,  the 
sanctioning  bodies  enforce  their  own  rules  and  regulations  and  assign  most  of  the 
fight  officials. 

The  selection  of  officials  is  obviously  an  important  element  of  any  boxing  match. 
Except  in  the  case  of  a  clear  knock-out,  scoring  in  boxing  can  be  quite  subjective.  It 
is  essential  that  judges  be  impartial  and  well-trained  in  order  to  ensure  fairness. 
However,  rather  than  using  local  officials  who  are  accountable  to  local  boxing  regu- 
lators for  their  performance,  sanctioning  bodies  demand  the  right  to  assign  their 
own  officials,  often  from  out-of-State  or  foreign  countries,  to  judge  boxing  matches. 
For  example,  the  two  judges  selected  by  the  IBF  for  the  Toney-Tiberi  match  held  in 
Atlantic  City  were  not  from  New  Jersey,  nor  were  they  licensed  as  boxing  judges  in 
New  Jersey.  Most  State  boxing  authorities  allow  the  sanctioning  bodies  this  privi- 
lege, knowing  that  if  the  State  regulators  object,  they  run  the  risk  of  the  fight  being 
moved  to  another  State  willing  to  accommodate  the  sanctioning  bodies.  As  previous- 
ly indicated,  boxing  regulators  in  Nevada,  which  hosts  the  most  world  title  fights  of 
any  State,  usually  choose  the  judges  from  lists  of  three  names  for  each  judging  posi- 
tion which  are  submitted  by  the  sanctioning  body.22  Other  States,  including  New 
York  and  New  Jersey,  typically  select  the  referee  and  one  judge  and  allow  the  sanc- 
tioning body  effectively  to  select  the  other  two  judges. 

Generally,  sanctioning  bodies  also  invoke  the  use  of  their  own  rules,  including 
their  scoring  rules,  rather  than  those  of  the  host  State.  For  example,  in  the  Tiberi- 
Toney  fight  which  was  held  in  Atlantic  City,  New  Jersey  and  was  an  IBF  sanctioned 
championship  fight,  the  IBF  rules  on  scoring  were  applied  by  the  IBF  selected 
judges.  Significantly,  the  IBF  rules  and  rule  interpretations  discourage  the  scoring 
of  even  rounds  in  championship  fights,  holding  that  even  rounds  should  be  scored 
for  the  champion  and  against  the  challenger.  But  New  Jersey's  rules  require  that 
an  even  round  is  to  be  scored  as  such.  One  of  the  judges  in  that  fight  saw  two 
rounds  as  even,  but  under  the  IBF's  rules,  did  not  score  them  as  such.23 


from  $3  million-$10  million,  and  1  percent  over  $10  million.  Sulaiman  also  acknowledged  that 
the  WBC  does  negotiate  agreements  with  promoters  establishing  a  "ceiling"  on  the  amount  of 
the  sanction  fee  for  a  particular  match,  although  there  is  no  provision  in  the  WBC's  rules  re- 
garding ceilings  on  sanction  fees.  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11 
and  12,  1992,  pp.  125-126. 

20  Deposition  of  Evander  Holyfield,  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing, 
August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  39,  Exhibit  55. 

21  In  response  to  Senator  Roth's  request  at  the  Subcommittee's  August  12,  1992  hearing,  Mr. 
Sulaiman  submitted  a  written  response  to  certain  questions  subsequent  to  the  hearing.  Included 
in  this  response  was  a  list  of  the  WBC's  contributions  to  UCLA,  totaling  $525,000.  However, 
copies  of  canceled  checks  provided  as  documentation  in  support  of  this  list  of  contributions  to- 
taled only  $415,000.  One  of  these  checks  was  dated  August  2,  1992,  10  days  before  the  Senate 
hearings.  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  Exhibit 
69. 

22  Exhibit  11  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee,  p.  56. 

23  New  Jersey  rules  require  that  "If  neither  boxer  can  be  judged  the  winner  of  a  round,  10 
points  must  be  scored  for  each  boxer"  (N.J.A.C.  12. 46-8. 19(b)(4)).  In  contrast,  the  IBF  guidelines 

Continued 


While  collusive  relationships  between  promoters  and  sanctioning  bodies  is  one  of 
the  most  frequently  alleged  areas  of  misconduct  in  professional  boxing,  fight  offi- 
cials selected  for  championship  fights  may  also  be  subject  to  undue  influence.  The 
promoter  usually  pays  all  travel  expenses  of  the  officials  for  a  world  title  fight.24 
Thus,  assignments  as  fight  officials  to  championship  fights  in  places  like  Tokyo, 
Bangkok,  or  Las  Vegas  are  sought  after  plums  for  foreign  fight  officials  as  well  as 
U.S.  fight  officials.  Referees  and  judges  are  also  typically  paid  substantially  more 
for  world  title  fights  than  for  non-title  fights.  Subcommittee  staff  has  also  learned 
through  interviews  that  some  trips  include  spouses  and  that,  particularly  in  foreign 
countries,  "shopping  excursions"  at  the  expense  of  the  promoter  are  also  sometimes 
included  for  fight  officials.  The  major  sanctioning  bodies  do  not  utilize  any  type  of 
strict  rotation  assignment  system  for  fight  officials.  Thus,  plum  assignments  can  be 
used  to  reward  loyalty,  rather  than  be  earned  on  merit. 

The  potential  for  bias  is  enhanced  if  a  particular  sanctioning  body  is  seen  as 
working  closely  with  a  particular  promoter.  In  that  case,  a  fight  official  seeking  to 
ensure  continued  plum  assignments  might  be  influenced  to  favor  the  boxer  affili- 
ated with  that  promoter.  Such  allegations  have  been  made  regarding  promoter  Don 
King's  relationship  with  Jose  Sulaiman,  head  of  the  WBC.  Rival  promoter,  Bob 
Arum,  in  deposition  testimony,  claimed  that  "He  [Sulaiman]  is  clearly  partners  with 
King  on  fighters.  This  [the  WBC]  is  King's  own  organization.  There  is  no  difference 
between  Don  King  and  Jose  Sulaiman."  25  When  former  heavyweight  champion 
Evander  Holyfield  was  asked  at  deposition  why  he  thought  the  WBC  wanted  him  to 
fight  Razor  Ruddock  rather  than  Riddick  Bowe  he  testified,  "Ruddock  is  now  man- 
aged by  Don  King,  and  Don  King  is  affiliated  with  WBC.  And  so,  when  it  is  more 
money  for  Don  King,  it's  more  money  for  the  WBC."  26 

Arum  testified  that  boxer  Julian  Jackson  was  dissatisfied  with  the  purses  King 
was  getting  for  him  as  Jackson's  promoter,  so  when  Jackson's  contract  with  King 
expired,  Jackson  considered  signing  with  Arum.  Sulaiman  then  threatened  to  strip 
Jackson  of  his  WBC  title  due  to  a  purported  eye  problem;  however,  when  Jackson 
re-signed  with  King,  the  WBC  backed  off  the  threat  and  allowed  Jackson  to  fight, 
his  eye  problem  miraculously  gone.27 

The  relationship  between  Don  King  and  the  WBC  is  apparently  mutually  benefi- 
cial. Records  provided  to  the  Subcommittee  by  the  WBC  show  that  in  1991,  Don 
King  Productions,  Inc.  paid  $535,000  in  sanction  fees  to  the  WBC.  This  amounts  to 
nearly  one-half  of  the  WBC's  total  reported  revenues  in  that  year.28  In  his  hearing 
testimony,  Sulaiman  denied  Arum's  charges,  stating  that  he  (Sulaiman)  is  no  closer 
with  King  than  with  any  other  promoter.  Sulaiman  denied  receiving  anything  of 
value  from  King  or  from  anyone  associated  with  King,  other  than  trips  to  WBC  title 
fights  promoted  by  King,  which  are  normally  paid  for  by  the  promoter.29 


state  that  a  judge  "should  very  rarely  have  an  even  round,  if  ever.  Challenger  should  be  expect- 
ed to  take  title  from  champion  and  not  win  by  default"  (IBF/USBA  Ring  Officials  Guide,  p.  7). 
This  standard  was  emphasized  in  an  IBF  press  release  dated  October,  1991,  which  stated  that 
the  scoring  of  even  rounds  "irks"  IBF  president  Bob  Lee.  The  release  quotes  Lee  as  stating, 
"[w]e  have  endeavored  to  discourage  the  scoring  of  even  rounds,"  and  that  "[t]his  appears  to  be 
a  cop-out  by  officials  who  are  paid  good  money  to  perform  their  duties."  According  to  Lee,  when 
a  round  is  extremely  close  the  challenger  must  take  the  title  from  the  champion — and  scoring 
officials  should  bear  that  in  mind  when  scoring  IBF  title  fights.  One  of  the  unlicensed  out-of- 
State  judges,  Bill  Lerch,  told  staff  that  he,  in  fact,  judged  two  rounds  of  the  fight  to  be  even 
rounds,  but  scored  these  rounds  for  Toney  because  of  his  understanding  that  IBF  rules  did  not 
permit  the  scoring  of  even  rounds  in  championship  fights.  These  rounds  were  the  2nd  and  12th 
rounds,  according  to  Lerch.  See  Report  of  Results  of  Investigation — Tiberi  v.  Toney,  Congression- 
al Record,  April  28,  1992,  p.  S  5661. 

In  response  to  questions  from  Senator  Roth,  New  Jersey  Commissioner  Hazzard  denied  being 
aware  of  the  IBF  policy  of  discouraging  the  scoring  of  even  rounds.  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption 
in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  pp.  69-70. 

24  Deposition  of  Robert  Arum,  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11 
and  12,  1992,  pp.  47-48,  Exhibit  40. 

25  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11,  and  12,  1992,  p.  57. 

26  Ibid.,  p.  38. 

27  Arum  deposition,  pp.  57-58.  In  his  hearing  testimony,  Sulaiman  denied  the  Arum  allega- 
tion, stating  that  the  WBC  simply  required  Jackson  to  undergo  eye  exams  resulting  from  Jack- 
son having  had  a  detached  retina  which  had  been  surgically  repaired.  Exhibit  40,  PSI  Hearings 
on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  128. 

28  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  Exhibits  59 
and  69. 

29  Ibid.,  p.  127. 


29 

State  boxing  regulators  run  the  risk  of  being  unduly  influenced  by  the  sanction- 
ing bodies  because  State  regulators  sometimes  serve  as  members  or  officials  of  sanc- 
tioning bodies.  For  example.  Dr.  Elias  Ghanem,  current  chairman  of  the  Nevada 
Athletic  Commission,  served  until  recently  as  a  vice  president  of  the  WBC.  Histori- 
cally, Nevada  Commissioners  have  usually  held  positions  with  the  various  sanction- 
ing bodies,  according  to  Dr.  Ghanem.30  As  a  WBC  official,  Dr.  Ghanem  not  only  had 
the  opportunity  to  vote  on  issues  presented  to  the  WBC,  but  also  to  serve  as  WBC 
supervisor  for  championship  fights  held  in  Nevada  and  in  other  locations,  including 
Tokyo,  Japan  for  the  controversial  1990  Mike  Tyson-Buster  Douglas  fight.  He  testi- 
fied that  State  commissioners  from  Nevada  as  well  as  other  States  from  time  to 
time  serve  as  supervisors  for  sanctioning  bodies  both  inside  and  outside  Nevada. 
The  function  of  such  sanctioning  body  supervisors  is  to  insure  that  sanctioning  body 
rules  are  followed,  according  to  Dr.  Ghanem.31  Nevada  regulators  have  also  routine- 
ly assisted  sanctioning  bodies  in  collecting  their  sanctioning  fees  from  boxers  by  au- 
thorizing deductions  from  boxers'  purses,  despite  the  fact  that  there  appears  to  be 
no  specific  authority  under  Nevada  regulations  for  such  deductions.32  In  fact, 
heavyweight  champion  Riddick  Bowe's  purse  was  withheld  by  the  Nevada  Athletic 
Commission  for  several  days  after  his  November,  1992  victory  over  Evander  Holy- 
field  because  of  Bowe's  failure  to  pay  sanctioning  fees. 

Control  of  Rankings 

Ranking  boxers  is  among  the  sanctioning  bodies'  most  important  functions.  If  a 
boxer  is  not  ranked  by  a  sanctioning  body,  the  boxer  has  no  chance  of  competing  for 
that  sanctioning  body's  title  and  is  effectively  denied  the  opportunity  for  the  sub- 
stantial earnings  that  can  come  with  a  title  bout.  Rankings  are  additionally  impor- 
tant according  to  testimony  of  Steve  Farhood,  editor  of  Ring  Magazine,  as  a  way  to 
prevent  dangerous  mismatches  and  to  avoid  disillusioning  boxing  fans.33  Due  to  its 
inherently  subjective  nature,  the  ranking  of  boxers  has  the  potential  for  substantial 
abuse. 

The  leverage  exerted  by  the  sanctioning  bodies  through  their  rankings  is  illustrat- 
ed by  the  events  leading  up  to  the  controversial  Toney-Tiberi  bout.  When  Tiberi  was 
first  considered  as  a  potential  challenger  for  Toney  by  promoter  Bob  Arum,  Tiberi 
was  not  ranked  by  the  IBF,  the  sanctioning  body  for  which  Toney  held  the  middle- 
weight title.  According  to  the  rules  of  the  IBF,  as  the  title-holder,  Toney  could  only 
be  challenged  by  boxers  ranked  in  the  IBF's  middleweight  top  10.  The  IBF  refused 
to  rank  Tiberi  because  Tiberi  was  the  champion  of  a  rival  sanctioning  body,  the 
lesser  known  International  Boxing  Council  (IBC).  To  make  the  fight  possible  under 
the  IBF  rules,  Arum  requested  that  the  IBF  rank  Tiberi  in  its  top  10.  The  IBF 
agreed  on  the  condition  that  Tiberi  give  up  his  title  with  the  rival  IBC.  After  Tiberi 
agreed  to  give  up  his  IBC  title,  the  IBF  ranked  him  No.  10  thereby  facilitating  the 
title  fight  the  promoter  wanted.34  As  the  Tiberi  situation  demonstrates,  cooperation 
between  a  sanctioning  body  and  a  promoter  can  benefit  both  parties,  i.e.,  the  pro- 
moter is  able  to  schedule  a  fight  and  the  sanctioning  body  is  able  to  collect  its  sanc- 
tion fees  from  that  fight.  Steve  Farhood  quoted  veteran  promoter  Russell  Peltz  in 
his  testimony:  "Less  is  based  on  talent  than  at  any  time  in  boxing  history.  It's  not 
whether  your  fighter  has  kayoed  20  straight  opponents,  but  how  many  conventions 
you've  been  to."  3S 

One  alleged  example  of  manipulation  of  rankings  involved  Donovan  "Razor"  Rud- 
dock, promoted  by  Don  King,  and  Riddick  Bowe,  the  current  IBF  and  WBA  heavy- 
weight champion.  In  its  February,  1992  rankings,  the  WBC  moved  heavyweight 
Ruddock  into  the  No.  2  challenger  position  replacing  Riddick  Bowe,  who  had  previ- 
ously been  ranked  No.  2.  This  rating  flip-flop  occurred  despite  Ruddock  having  lost 


30  Ghanem  deposition,  pp.  42-43.  Dr.  Ghanem  indicated  that  he  recently  resigned  his  position 
in  order  to  avoid  the  potential  for  a  future  conflict  of  interest.  Exhibit  11  is  retained  in  the  files 
of  the  Subcommittee. 

31  Ibid.,  pp.  45-47. 

32  "To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  in  paying  these  fighters  in  the  last  10  years,  there's  always 
been  on  the  check  stub  a  statement  saying  so  much  withheld  for  the  sanctioning  body,  and 
that's  been  the  custom."  Testimony  of  Marc  Ratner,  Chief  Inspector  of  Nevada  State  Athletic 
Commission,  Ghanem  deposition,  pp.  99-100,  Exhibit  11  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcom- 
mittee. See  generally,  Ratner  testimony,  Ghanem  deposition,  pp.  98-100.  See  also  Nevada  Ath- 
letic Commission  Regulation  467.137,  Exhibit  27  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

33  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  78. 

34  Report  of  Results  of  Investigation — Tiberi  v.  Toney,  Congressional  Record,  April  28,  1992,  p. 
S  5659. 

35  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  82. 


30 

both  of  his  fights  in  1991,  while  Bowe  won  all  seven  of  his  fights  during  that  year.36 
Supposedly,  WBC  rankings  are  determined  by  the  WBC  ranking  committee.  A 
former  member  of  the  WBC  ranking  committee  advised,  however,  that  Jose  Sulai- 
man  retains  final  decision  authority  over  rankings. 

Do  the  sanctioning  bodies'  activities  justify  the  large  fees  that  they  charge?  As 
noted  previously,  Evander  Holyfield  observed,  "I  can't  recall  them  [the  sanctioning 
bodies]  doing  anything  but  showing  up  and  having  judges  to  judge  the  fight."  37  Fur- 
ther, sanctioning  bodies,  despite  being  private  entities,  usurp  many  of  the  responsi- 
bilities of  the  State  and  local  regulatory  authorities  which  have  the  legal  responsi- 
bility of  ensuring  that  professional  boxing  in  that  jurisdiction  is  safe  and  fair.  State 
regulators  face  the  difficult  choice  of  yielding  to  these  private  sanctioning  bodies  or 
risking  having  the  match  moved  to  another  jurisdiction  willing  to  accommodate 
these  groups. 

Promoter  Bob  Arum  summarized  one  view  of  the  sanctioning  bodies  as  follows: 
"These  sanctioning  things  are  clearly  great  rackets.  ...  it  is  great  action.  You  col- 
lect sanction  fees.  You  don't  account  for  the  money.  You  go  all  over  the  world.  You 
are  wined  and  dined.  It  is  really  great  business  if  you  can  get  it."  38 

Promoters  and  Managers 

WBA  cruiserweight  champion  Bobby  Czyz,  in  his  testimony  before  the  Subcommit- 
tee on  August  11,  1992,  said,  "There  is  more  honesty,  loyalty  and  decency  among 
common  criminals  and  street  thieves  than  among  promoters  and  managers  in 
boxing  today."  Czyz  went  on  to  state,  however,  that  "...  without  these  managers 
and  promoters,  the  fighter  has  no  vehicle  to  succeed  and  to  get  the  necessary  fights 
to  earn  a  living."  39 

Generally,  promoters  are  responsible  for  putting  the  fight  card  together  and 
assume  the  financial  risk  as  to  whether  the  show  succeeds  or  fails.  Thus,  a  promoter 
can  be  expected  to  pay  the  boxers  as  little  as  possible  in  order  to  maximize  the  pro- 
moter's profit.  The  manager,  on  the  other  hand,  is  responsible  for  representing  the 
boxer's  interests  and,  presumably,  will  try  to  get  the  boxer  the  best  possible  deal 
from  the  promoter.  Thus,  a  manager  and  promoter  should  maintain  an  arms-length 
relationship.  In  most  States,  managers  and  promoters  are  both  required  to  be  li- 
censed and  their  activities  are  regulated.  For  example,  many  States  limit  to  33  Vb 
percent  the  manager's  share  of  a  boxer's  purse.  Also,  some  States  (including  Califor- 
nia and  Pennsylvania)  require  a  contract  between  a  manager  and  a  boxer  to  be  wit- 
nessed by  a  member  of  the  State  regulatory  authority.  However,  as  with  other 
boxing  rules,  those  governing  promoters  and  managers  vary  among  the  States,  as 
does  the  enforcement  of  those  rules.  Some  States,  such  as  Nevada,  specifically  pro- 
hibit promoters  from  having  a  financial  interest  in  boxers.40  Others  have  no  such 
prohibitions. 

Perhaps  the  best  example  of  this  kind  of  overt  conflict  of  interest  situation  in- 
volves promoter  Don  King  "negotiating"  fight  contracts  with  his  stepson  and  pur- 
ported manager,  Carl  King.  One  result  of  this  relationship  was  the  Tim  Wither- 
spoon-James  "Bonecrusher"  Smith  fight  in  Madison  Square  Garden  on  December 
12,  1986,  in  which  Don  King  was  the  promoter  and  Carl  King  was  listed  as  the  man- 
ager of  record  for  both  boxers  in  the  same  fight.41  This  fight  took  place  despite  New 
York  regulations  prohibiting  a  single  manager  from  handling  both  boxers  in  the 
same  fight.42  The  promoter-manager  relationship  between  Don  King  and  Carl  King 


36  Sulaiman,  in  his  hearing  testimony,  claimed  the  only  reason  Ruddock  was  ranked  lower  in 
the  first  place  was  because  Ruddock  had  failed  to  pay  the  WBC  sanction  fees  from  his  two  previ- 
ous fights  in  1991  (March  18  and  June  20,  both  of  which  were  against  Tyson).  Sulaiman  said 
when  Ruddock  paid  the  overdue  sanction  fees  (with  a  check  in  the  amount  of  $150,000,  dated 
December  28,  1991,  which  was  not  received  by  the  WBC  until  January  20,  1992),  Ruddock  was 
restored  to  his  rightful  place  as  the  No.  2  challenger  (behind  Tyson,  the  mandatory  challenger) 
and  Bowe  was  dropped  from  second  to  third.  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing, 
August  11  and  12,  1992,  pp.  128-129. 

37  Evander  Holyfield  deposition,  p.  39,  Exhibit  55,  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional 
Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992. 

38  Arum  deposition,  p.  52,  Exhibit  40,  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing, 
August  11  and  12,  1992. 

39  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  14. 

40  Nevada  Administrative  Code  467.870. 

41  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  Exhibits  25 
and  26. 

42  New  York  State  Athletic  Commission  rule  209.3.  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Profession- 
al Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  Exhibit  27. 


31 

also  apparently  enabled  Don  King  to  evade  other  State  laws  intended  to  protect  the 
financial  earnings  of  boxers.  Joseph  Maffia,  the  former  Comptroller  of  Don  King 
Productions,  stated  in  an  affidavit: 

".  .  .  Under  Nevada  law,  the  maximum  percentage  a  manager  can  take 
from  a  fighter's  purse  is  33  Vb  percent.  Yet  in  many  cases,  Don  King  promot- 
ed fights  in  Nevada  in  which  one  or  more  of  the  fighters  was  managed  by 
Don's  son,  Carl  King  of  Monarch  Boxing,  Inc.  Oftentimes,  in  those  in- 
stances, the  fighters  were  required  to  pay  Carl  King  a  fifty  percent  manage- 
rial share,  and  false  declarations  were  filed  with  the  Nevada  State  Athletic 
Commission.  Monarch  Boxing  was  financed  and  controlled  by  Don  King, 
and  the  bulk  of  all  money  received  by  Monarch  was  paid  in  return  to  Don 
King  Productions  as  a  'loan  repayment'."  43 

Don  King  invoked  his  fifth  amendment  rights  and  refused  to  answer  questions 
about  the  Maffia  affidavits  during  a  Subcommittee  deposition.44 

Another  situation  resulting  from  this  arrangement  was  the  Witherspoon-Frank 
Bruno  heavyweight  championship  fight  in  London,  England,  on  July  19,  1986,  for 
which  Witherspoon,  the  champion  going  in  and  the  victor,  received  approximately 
$90,000,  while  Bruno,  the  challenger  and  loser,  pocketed  approximately  $1.8  million. 

Don  and  Carl  King  are  not  the  only  example  of  potential  conflicts  of  interest  re- 
sulting from  family  ties  in  boxing.  Promoter  Dan  Duva  is  the  son  of  manager  Lou 
Duva,  and  there  are  several  boxers  who  have  been  promoted  by  Dan  Duva's  promo- 
tional company,  Main  Events  and  simultaneously  managed  by  Lou  Duva,  including 
world  champions  Evander  Holyfield,  Pernell  Whitaker  and  Meldrick  Taylor.  In  his 
testimony  before  the  Subcommittee,  Dan  Duva  asserted  that  he  avoids  any  such  con- 
flicts of  interest  by  requiring  that  his  boxers  have  their  own  counsel,  independent  of 
Main  Events  and  Lou  Duva.  Whatever  the  merits  of  this  practice  by  the  Duvas,  the 
fact  is  that  most  boxers  are  not  represented  by  independent  counsel  in  their  negotia- 
tions with  managers  and  promoters,  and  boxers  have  told  us  that  some  promoters 
will  not  even  negotiate  if  the  boxers  obtain  independent  counsel.  In  some  cases,  pro- 
moters have  had  boxers  sign  blank  contract  forms  giving  the  promoter  the  opportu- 
nity to  fill  in  the  blanks  at  his  convenience.45 

Where  States  have  specific  rules  that  prohibit  certain  kinds  of  contracts,  promot- 
ers and  managers  easily  evade  the  prohibitions  by  filing  one  contract  which  meets 
the  State's  requirements,  while  obtaining  another  "real"  contract  which  evades  the 
requirement.  For  example,  Nevada  has  a  rule  against  multiple  option  contracts.46 
Multiple  option  contracts  are  commonly  sought  by  boxing  promoters  in  order  to  tie- 
up  a  boxer  in  an  exclusive  arrangement  for  multiple  future  fights.  In  a  typical 
option  contract  the  promoter  of  the  current  champion  agrees  to  give  a  potential 
challenger  an  opportunity  for  a  match  only  if  the  challenger  agrees  that,  should  he 
win,  the  challenger  will  fight  exclusively  for  the  promoter  for  a  certain  number  of 
future  fights.  Thus,  the  promoter  assures  that,  whatever  the  outcome  of  a  particular 
fight,  the  promoter  will  retain  control  over  the  champion.  Nevada  Athletic  Commis- 
sioner, Dr.  Jim  Nave,  testified  that,  "It  is  our  position  in  Nevada  that  option  con- 
tracts create  a  form  of  slavery."  47  Elias  Ghanem,  current  chairman  of  the  Nevada 
Athletic  Commission,  reiterated  this  view  in  his  deposition.48 

Despite  Nevada's  rule  prohibiting  option  contracts,  such  agreements  are  signed 
for  fights  that  occur  in  Nevada.  For  example,  on  November  29,  1991,  James 
"Buddy"  McGirt  fought  Simon  Brown  at  the  Mirage  Hotel  in  Las  Vegas  for  the 
WBC  welterweight  championship.  An  official  Nevada  boxing  contract  for  this  fight 
was  signed  by  McGirt,  his  manager  (Al  Certo  aka  Alfred  Certissimo)  and  his  promot- 
er (Madison  Square  Garden  [MSG]  Boxing,  represented  by  Bob  Goodman)  on  Novem- 
ber 22,  1991,  and  filed  with  the  Nevada  Athletic  Commission  as  required  by  Nevada 
law  (the  "Nevada  contract").49  The  Nevada  contract  called  for  MSG  Boxing  to  pay 


43  Affidavit  of  Joseph  A.  Maffia  of  May  6,  1992.  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional 
Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  221,  Exhibit  35. 

44  Deposition  of  Don  King,  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and 
12,  1992,  p.  208,  Exhibit  29. 

45  Blank  Form  Agreement,  Don  King  Productions,  Inc.,  signed  by  Don  King,  Carl  King  and 
Tim  Witherspoon,  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992. 
Exhibit  11  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

46  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission  rule  467.112(3). 

47  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  78. 

48  Ghanem  deposition,  p.  70,  Exhibit  11  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

49  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission  rule  467.117.  Deposition  exhibit  3  of  Exhibit  11  is  re- 
tained in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


32 

McGirt  $625,000  to  fight  Simon  Brown,  and  makes  no  reference  to  any  future  op- 
tions. However,  on  November  26,  1991,  Goodman  (representing  MSG  Boxing), 
McGirt  and  Certo  signed  a  document  titled  "Bout  Agreement  With  Options"  (the 
"New  York  contract"),  which  also  called  for  McGirt  to  fight  Simon  Brown  on  No- 
vember 29,  1991,  at  the  Mirage  Hotel  in  Las  Vegas.  The  New  York  contract  called 
for  MSG  Boxing  to  pay  McGirt  $700,000  for  this  fight  and,  according  to  paragraph 
12,  McGirt  "irrevocably"  granted  MSG  Boxing  "the  Option  to  secure,  arrange  and 
promote  [McGirt's]  next  five  (5)  professional  boxing  contests.  .  .  ."  50  Based  on  the 
option  provision  in  paragraph  12,  Nevada  Commission  Chairman  Ghanem  acknowl- 
edged that  the  New  York  contract  was  inconsistent  with  the  rules  of  the  State  of 
Nevada.51 

Nevada  also  requires  prior  written  permission  from  a  member  of  the  Athletic 
Commission  in  order  for  a  promoter  to  provide  a  boxer  with  training  expenses  in 
advance  of  a  fight.52  For  the  McGirt-Brown  fight,  paragraph  4  of  the  New  York  con- 
tract breaks  down  the  $700,000  which  the  promoter  (MSG  Boxing)  was  to  pay 
McGirt  into  "$625,000  plus  $75,000  for  training  expenses."  MSG  Boxing  paid  Alfred 
Certissimo,  Inc.  (McGirt's  manager's  company)  $75,000  in  training  expenses  in  two 
installments  prior  to  the  fight  without  notifying  the  Nevada  Commission.53  In  this 
case,  the  training  expenses  were  above  the  amount  of  the  Nevada  contract — further 
indication  of  the  fact  that  the  Nevada  contract  was  filed  merely  as  a  formality  to 
comply  with  Nevada  law,  but  that  it  was  the  New  York  contract  that  governed  the 
financial  relationships  between  the  boxers,  managers  and  promoters. 

Boxing  regulations  in  Nevada  and  other  States  are  designed  to  ensure  that  the 
boxer  gets  all  of  the  money  to  which  he  is  entitled  immediately  after  the  bout  by 
requiring  that  the  purse  be  paid  by  the  promoter  directly  to  a  commission  repre- 
sentative, who  then  transfers  the  purse  check  to  the  boxer  and  has  the  boxer  sign 
for  his  purse.54  However,  the  Nevada  commission  keeps  no  actual  record  of  exactly 
how  much  money  the  boxer  receives.  The  commission's  records  show  only  the  total 
amount  of  the  purse  from  the  contract  filed  with  the  Nevada  commission  less  any 
Nevada  commission  license  fees  due  from  the  boxer.  The  amount  of  money  a  boxer 
actually  receives  from  a  fight  often  is  significantly  less  than  the  contract  amount, 
with  money  deducted  for  advances,  training  expenses,  sanction  fees  and  other  ex- 
penses. The  Nevada  commission  keeps  no  record  of  deductions  or  of  the  actual 
amount  the  boxer  is  paid.  The  commission  relies  solely  on  the  promoter's  list  of  de- 
ductions from  the  boxer's  purse,  and  in  most  cases,  the  commission  does  not  retain  a 
record  of  those  deductions.  For  example,  the  Nevada  Athletic  commission  form  doc- 
umenting payments  to  the  boxers  for  the  McGirt-Brown  fight  shows  only  the  total 
purse  amounts  and  does  not  reflect  any  of  the  deductions.55 

Media  Influence 

Television  currently  provides  the  largest  source  of  revenue  for  high  profile  profes- 
sional boxing  matches.  There  are  four  different  types  of  television  which  program 
professional  boxing:  "free  TV,"  non-subscription  cable;  subscription  cable  and  pay 
per  view  (ppv). 

Historically,  the  major  television  networks,  the  primary  components  of  "free  TV," 
have  played  the  largest  role  in  boxing.  In  recent  years,  cable  TV  and  pay  per  view 
have  come  to  play  the  more  dominant  roles. 


50  See  Ghanem  deposition,  Deposition  exhibit  4.  This  document  is  called  "the  New  York  con- 
tract" because  paragraph  16  calls  for  the  Agreement  to  be  governed  by  New  York  law.  Exhibit 
11  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

51  Ghanem  deposition,  p.  88.  Neither  Ghanem  nor  Chief  Inspector  Ratner  had  seen  the  New 
York  contract  prior  to  this  deposition.  Ghanem  deposition,  pp.  86-87.  Exhibit  11  is  retained  in 
the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

52  Nevada  Revised  Statutes  467.130. 

53  See  Ghanem  deposition,  Deposition  exhibit  4,  paragraph  4.  Exhibit  11  is  retained  in  the 
files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

Nevada  rules  allow  a  boxer  to  assign  his  share  of  the  purse  by  filing  a  written  request  with 
the  commission  at  least  5  days  prior  to  the  fight.  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission  rule 
467.137(5).  McGirt  filed  such  a  request  3  days  prior  to  the  Brown  fight,  asking  the  Nevada  Com- 
mission to  allow  McGirt's  purse  checks  to  be  made  payable  to  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.  This  re- 
quest was  approved  by  Commission  Executive  Director,  Chuck  Minker.  See  Ghanem  deposition, 
Deposition  exhibit  1.  Exhibit  11  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

54  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission  rule  467.142(3). 

55  Nevada  Athletic  Commission  boxers'  payment  sheet  for  McGirt-Brown  fight,  November  29, 
1991,  Exhibit  21. 


33 

Free  TV 

"Free  TV"  refers  primarily  to  the  three  major  television  networks:  ABC,  CBS  and 
NBC.  Through  the  mid-1980s,  the  networks  were  still  heavily  involved  in  airing  pro- 
fessional boxing.  During  that  time,  ABC  consistently  produced  the  most  boxing  and 
reportedly  paid  the  highest  rights  fees  to  televise  fights — up  to  $300,000  per  show — 
while  NBC  and  CBS  paid  $100,000  to  $150,000.  As  recently  as  1989,  there  were  ap- 
proximately 40-50  fight  shows  on  free  TV,  with  15-18  on  NBC  and  12-20  each  on 
ABC  and  CBS.  But  in  more  recent  years,  free  TV  has  substantially  abandoned  the 
televising  of  professional  boxing.  NBC  televised  two  fights  in  1992  and  currently  has 
no  boxing  on  its  programming  schedule.  ABC  televised  three  professional  boxing 
shows  in  1991  and  again  in  1992  and  will  probably  carry  a  similar  number  of  shows 
in  1993.  CBS  last  broadcast  a  professional  boxing  match  in  1991  and  has  no  present 
plans  to  televise  boxing.  Further,  the  rights  fees  which  the  networks  are  willing  to 
pay  for  boxing  have  fallen  dramatically.56 

Several  factors  have  contributed  to  the  decline  of  professional  boxing  on  free  TV. 
With  the  advent  of  cable  television,  the  sports  marketplace  has  increased  and  more 
"product,"  i.e.,  more  sporting  events  are  being  shown  on  television.  This  gives  adver- 
tisers a  wide  variety  of  different  sports  to  choose  from  in  placing  their  television 
sports  spots,  thus  "fractionalizing"  the  market.  As  a  result,  although  boxing's  rat- 
ings have  been  stable  and  can  in  fact  be  better  than  some  other  sports'  more  fre- 
quently shown  on  free  television,  the  combination  of  boxing's  demographics  (heavily 
male  viewers)  and  the  sport's  image  have  caused  many  advertisers  to  favor  other 
sports.  As  a  result,  the  networks  do  not  believe  they  can  afford  to  pay  rights  fees  in 
the  amount  being  paid  by  subscription  cable  and  ppv,  both  of  which  are  financed  by 
subscriber  revenue  and  do  not  depend  on  advertising. 

In  addition,  the  losses  which  the  networks  have  suffered  on  other  major  sports 
contracts  have  left  no  room  for  losses  on  any  other  sports,  so  that  if  a  sporting  event 
cannot  pay  for  itself,  the  networks  are  reluctant  to  air  it. 

Free  TV  does  offer  boxers  the  widest  possible  television  viewing  audience.  This 
kind  of  maximum  exposure  allows  a  boxer  to  establish  his  reputation  and  make 
himself  more  marketable  for  the  bigger  paydays  available  on  subscription  cable  and 
ppv.  However,  with  free  TV  moving  out  of  televising  boxing,  such  opportunities  are 
becoming  much  more  limited. 

Non-subscription  Cable  Networks 

The  primary  national  non-subscription  cable  networks  which  televise  boxing  are 
ESPN  and  USA  Network.  There  are  also  regional  networks  like  Madison  Square 
Garden  (MSG)  Network  and  Prime  (a  network  of  regional  sports  cable  stations). 
Both  ESPN  and  USA  show  approximately  40  boxing  shows  per  year,  substantially 
more  than  any  other  television  outlets.  However  they  have  a  more  limited  audience 
than  free  television  and  they  pay  substantially  less  than  premium  cable,  so  they 
tend  to  televise  less  well  known  boxers  in  less  well  known  locations.  ESPN  has  an 
exclusive  arrangement  with  promoter  Bob  Arum's  company,  Top  Rank,  while  USA 
contracts  with  a  variety  of  promoters.  ESPN  and  USA  obtain  revenue  from  both 
subscriber  fees  and  advertising.  ESPN  has  approximately  61.5  million  subscribers, 
while  USA  Network  has  approximately  60  million  subscribers. 

Subscription  Cable  Networks 

The  major  subscription  cable  networks  are  Home  Box  Office  (HBO)  and  Showtime. 
Both  of  these  networks  are  so-called  "premium  cable  channels,"  which  means  they 
rely  on  subscriber  revenue,  rather  than  advertising.  Each  network  also  has  to 
market  itself  every  month  to  ensure  subscribers  do  not  cancel  their  subscriptions. 

HBO,  in  particular,  has  upped  the  ante  significantly  for  boxing  shows,  of  which  it 
does  an  average  of  8-10  per  year.  Showtime  does  an  average  of  6-8  boxing  shows  per 
year.  It  is  not  unusual  for  HBO  to  pay  $1  million  or  more  for  particular  fights,  and 
recently  HBO  announced  a  multi-fight  contract  with  heavyweight  champion  Riddick 
Bowe  with  a  potential  value  of  $100  million,  putting  HBO  in  a  league  of  its  own. 

Pay-Per-View  (PPV) 

The  most  significant  PPV  entities  involved  in  professional  boxing  are  TVKO, 
which  like  HBO,  is  a  subsidiary  of  Time  Warner,  and  SET,  which  is  owned  by  Show- 


56  Arum  deposition,  p.   13.  Exhibit  40,  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing, 
August  11  and  12,  1992. 


34 

time.  The  PPV  entities  have  substantially  superceded  closed  circuit  as  the  preferred 
technology  for  showing  specific  events  to  home  viewers.  PPV  technology  allows  cus- 
tomers with  cable  receivers  that  have  "addressable  boxes"  to  order  and  receive  spe- 
cific televised  events.  Each  event  is  paid  for  separately — hence  the  term  Pay  Per 
View.  Currently,  approximately  20  million  homes  can  access  PPV. 

PPV  is  currently  at  the  top  of  the  boxing  television  hierarchy.  By  charging  up  to 
$40  for  a  fight,  ppv  is  able  to  provide  the  largest  purses  and  thereby  attract  the  top 
contests.  Generally,  the  local  cable  operators  keep  50  percent  of  the  PPV  charge, 
with  an  additional  small  percentage  also  going  to  the  PPV  distributors,  Request  Tel- 
evision and  Viewer's  Choice,  who  are  the  middlemen  in  PPV  telecasts.  That  leaves 
less  than  50  percent  for  the  promoter.  TVKO  plans  6-7  boxing  shows  in  1993,  a  de- 
crease from  its  previous  monthly  schedule,  while  SET  does  an  average  of  2-3  boxing 
shows  per  year. 

On  several  occasions,  television  networks  of  all  types  have  entered  into  long-term 
relationships  with  boxing  promoters  in  order  to  ensure  a  steady  supply  of  boxing 
product.  For  example,  ESPN  is  in  its  14th  year  of  contracts  with  Bob  Arum's  Top 
Rank.  Similarly,  HBO  had  a  series  of  agreements  with  Don  King  for  a  period  of  14 
years.  King  and  HBO  had  a  falling  out,  resulting  in  King  forming  his  own  PPV 
company,  King  Vision,  which  now  appears  to  work  primarily  with  SET. 

Most  television  networks  contract  with  boxing  promoters  to  put  fights  together. 
While  the  network  approves  the  fight  card,  network  representatives  generally  do 
not  get  involved  in  actually  putting  the  show  together — that  is  left  to  the  promoter. 
The  television  network's  contract  is  generally  with  the  promoter  who  in  turn  con- 
tracts with  the  managers  and  boxers.  Time  Warner  Sports  (HBO  and  TVKO)  does 
things  differently.  Seth  Abraham  explained  in  a  deposition  that  HBO  and  TVKO 
take  an  active  role  in  arranging  particular  match-ups  which  they  think  will  be  at- 
tractive. "[W]e  will  go  to  a  promoter  and  we  will  suggest  matches.  We  have  particu- 
lar men  in  mind  that  we  want  to  see  matched  up  and  we  will  go  to  them,"  Abraham 
said.57 

Time  Warner  Sports  sometimes  negotiates  and  enters  into  contractual  arrange- 
ments directly  with  boxers.  For  example,  Time  Warner  Sports  currently  has  a  con- 
tract with  George  Foreman  and  has  had  contracts  with  boxers  Marvin  Hagler  and 
Sugar  Ray  Leonard.58  Other  television  networks  explained  that  they  generally  con- 
tract with  the  promoter,  who  then  deals  with  the  boxers. 

Time  Warner  Sports  also  enters  into  multiple  fight  or  so-called  option  contracts 
with  boxers,  whereas  Showtime,  for  example,  generally  contracts  on  a  single  fight 
basis.  In  February,  1993,  Time  Warner  Sports  and  heavyweight  champion  Riddick 
Bowe  held  a  joint  press  conference  celebrating  Time  Warner  Sports  signing  Bowe  to 
a  multiple  fight  contract.  At  the  press  conference,  Bowe  held  up  a  facsimile  check 
for  $100  million,  indicating  the  potential  value  of  the  contract.  Time  Warner  Sports 
has  also  prepared  television  commercials  linking  Bowe  and  HBO,  and  has  bought 
time  during  major  sporting  events  to  show  these  ads.59 

Also,  Time  Warner  Sports  requires  their  boxers  sign  exclusive  contracts;  that  is, 
the  terms  of  the  contract  specifically  prohibit  that  boxer  from  fighting  on  any  other 
network.60  Other  networks,  including  Showtime,  said  they  do  not  require  exclusive 
contracts. 

No  television  network  is  licensed  as  a  boxing  promoter.  Time  Warner  Sports,  how- 
ever, arguably  comes  closer  than  any  other  network  to  acting  as  a  promoter.61  In 
any  event,  HBO  (including  TVKO)  is  widely  believed  to  be  the  major  financial  influ- 
ence in  big  time  professional  boxing  today.  Sports  Illustrated  called  Abraham  "the 


57  Deposition  of  Seth  G.  Abraham,  February  2,  1993,  p.  19.  Exhibit  50  is  retained  in  the  files  of 
the  Subcommittee. 

58  Ibid.,  p.  79. 

59  Ibid.,  pp.  17-18. 

60  Ibid.,  p.  28. 

61  Abraham,  in  his  deposition,  said  attorneys  for  Time  Warner  Sports  have  examined  this 
question  and  found  that  Time  Warner  Sports  is  not  acting  as  a  promoter  and  therefore  is  not 
required  to  be  licensed  as  such.  Abraham  deposition,  p.  51,  Exhibit  50.  Interestingly,  the  ques- 
tion of  a  television  entity  acting  as  a  boxing  promoter  was  raised  by  Senator  Kefauver  during 
his  hearings  in  1961.  Senator  Kefauver  said,  "testimony  before  the  Subcommittee  disclosed  that 
a  new  type  of  boxing  promoter — the  closed-circuit  TV  magnate — has  arisen  in  recent  years.  Cor- 
porations engaged  in  closed-circuit  TV  wield  immense  power  over  the  conduct  of  major  boxing 
contests;  yet,  they  are  neither  licensed,  nor  regulated  by  the  Federal  Government — as  are  the 
regular  TV  networks."  Senate  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  Subcommittee  on  Antitrust  and  Mo- 
nopoly, Hearings  on  Professional  Boxing,  87th  Congress,  1st  Session,  May  31,  June  1  and  2,  1961, 
p.  1253. 


35 

heaviest  hitter  in  the  world  of  professional  boxing"  and  claimed  "that  he  controls, 
to  a  large  degree,  the  colorful  business  of  boxing.  .  .  ."  62 

Health  and  Safety 

Perhaps  the  most  important  area  in  which  the  current  system  of  State  regulation 
of  professional  boxing  has  proven  ineffective  is  protection  of  the  health  and  safety  of 
boxers.  Boxers  generally  enjoy  few,  if  any,  of  the  protections  and  benefits  accorded 
other  professional  athletes.  Boxers  have  no  unions  which  negotiate  safety  issues, 
very  limited,  if  any,  health  insurance  coverage,  and  a  paucity  of  pension  plans.63 
The  patchwork  system  of  State  regulation  of  professional  boxing  results  in  wide 
variations  from  State  to  State  both  in  health  and  safety  rules  themselves  and  in  the 
enforcement  of  those  rules.  As  a  result,  it  is  the  boxers  who  suffer. 

Boxers'  health  and  safety  are  endangered  through  gross  mismatches  between 
boxers  of  unequal  ability,  failure  to  enforce  health  and  safety  related  suspension 
from  one  jurisdiction  to  another,  absence  of  uniform  drug  testing  standards,  and 
gaps  in  enforcement  of  health  and  safety  standards  under  the  current  fragmented 
regulatory  system. 

Mismatches 

One  example  of  a  significant  threat  to  a  boxer's  health  and  safety  is  the  problem 
of  gross  mismatches,  that  is,  the  sanctioning  of  boxing  contests  between  opponents 
of  such  disparate  ability  that  the  outcome  is  not  only  preordained,  the  safety  of  the 
lesser  "opponent"  is  endangered.  Such  mismatches  are  sometimes  sought  to  pad  a 
boxer's  record,  i.e.,  to  increase  his  number  of  wins  by  having  him  fight  inferior  op- 
ponents, thus  making  him  appear,  on  his  record  to  be  a  superior  boxer  and  a  more 
attractive  draw,  particularly  for  television.  But  as  boxer  Dave  Tiberi  pointed  out  in 
his  testimony,  mismatches  can  jeopardize  a  boxer's  health  and  safety.64 

Boxing  records  are  replete  with  examples  of  obvious  mismatches.  Several  wit- 
nesses at  the  hearings  cited  particularly  egregious  cases.  New  York  Boxing  Commis- 
sioner Randy  Gordon  testified  as  follows: 

In  1979,  there  was  a  WBC  bantamweight  championship  fight  in  Los  An- 
geles, California,  featuring  the  sensational  Carlos  Zarate,  of  Mexico  City. 
He  was  also  a  favorite  of  the  WBC  hierarchy,  and  he  took  on  the  No.  1 
challenger,  a  man  from  Africa.  Nobody  knew  anything  about  him.  Nobody 
could  watch  him  train.  They  had  closed-door  workouts. 

When  the  fight  started,  Zarate  started  to  go  after  his  opponent  and  then 
saw  this  unorthodox  style  that  he  had  never  seen  before,  and  he  figured  he 
was  being  suckered  in,  that  the  guy  was  trying  to  make  him  think  that  he 
could  not  fight,  to  land  some  big  bomb.  So  the  champion  kept  away  in 
rounds  one  and  two  and  just  studied  his  opponent.  But  by  the  third  round, 
he  realized  this  man  cannot  fight.  He  moved  in  and  he  knocked  his  oppo- 
nent out. 

It  turned  out  that  this  supposed  No.  1  challenger  had  never  had  a  fight 
before.  How  did  the  sanctioning  body  get  him  to  No.  1?  That  is  a  question  I 
cannot  answer.  I  can  only  ask  it.65 


62  Hoffer,  Richard,  "Fists  Full  of  Dollars,"  Sports  Illustrated,  January  15,  1990,  p.  94,  Exhibit 
46.  Mr.  Abraham  demurred  from  this  description.  He  testified  in  his  deposition  that  boxing 
".  .  .  is  a  fraternity  of  maybe  12  to  15  men,  and  at  various  times  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  power, 
the  impact  of  these  12  to  15  men  vary.  But  I  will  tell  you  this,  it  is  never  one."  Abraham  deposi- 
tion, p.  14,  Exhibit  50. 

63  In  a  staff  interview,  Richard  DeCuir,  the  executive  officer  of  the  California  State  Athletic 
Commission,  explained  that  California  is  one  of  the  few  States  which  has  instituted  a  pension 
plan  for  boxers.  However,  the  pension  fund  has  not  paid  out  any  benefits  yet.  The  first  pay-out 
is  expected  in  the  year  2008.  A  boxer  who  has  contributed  to  the  pension  plan  will  receive  pay- 
ments when  he  turns  65.  However,  DeCuir  pointed  out  that  there  are  problems  with  the  pension 
plan.  For  example,  since  payments  will  be  based  on  contributions,  the  boxers  who  will  need  the 
pension  most  are  likely  to  not  qualify  for  a  pension  sufficient  to  do  them  much  good.  DeCuir 
also  noted  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  keep  track  of  boxers.  For  example,  he  recently  sent  out  a 
letter  to  the  boxers  who  had  contributed  to  the  pension  plan  and  40  percent  of  the  letters  were 
returned  as  undeliverable.  DeCuir  said  the  California  commission  is  considering  using  the 
money  for  other  purposes. 

64  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  21. 

65  Ibid.,  p.  53. 


36 

Former  Ohio  Boxing  Commissioner  William  Finissi,  testified  that  on  December  12, 
1991,  the  Ohio  Boxing  Commission  approved  a  boxing  match  between  Alex  Zolkin 
and  James  Holley.  At  the  time,  Zolkin  was  undefeated  while  Holley  had  been 
knocked  out  in  his  last  24  fights,  with  20  of  those  knockouts  occurring  in  either  the 
first  or  second  round.  While  mismatches  are  common  in  Ohio,  according  to  Finissi, 
the  Zolkin-Holley  bout  was  an  unusually  extreme  example.66 

Gross  mismatches  are  not  only  dangerous  for  boxers,  they  lead  to  cynicism  among 
boxing  fans  and  the  general  public.  The  ultimate  goal  of  every  contest  authorized  by 
a  State  boxing  authority  should  be  a  genuinely  competitive  match.  But  State  boxing 
officials  testified  that  State  regulators  frequently  lack  the  resources  to  compile  or 
obtain  the  data  necessary  to  determine  whether  boxers  are  evenly  matched.  Some 
officials  suggested  a  national  registry  of  boxers  as  a  possible  solution  to  this  prob- 
lem.67 One  witness  suggested  going  back  to  the  old  system  of  ranking  boxers  in  cat- 
egories according  to  their  skill  level,  e.g.,  A,  B,  C  and  D,  and  generally  permitting  a 
boxer  only  to  fight  another  boxer  in  the  same  category,  thus  limiting  potential  mis- 
matches.68 

Recordkeeping  and  Suspensions 

Another  problem  accentuated  by  the  State-by-State  variation  in  boxing  rules  is 
abuse  of  adequate  recordkeeping  generally  and,  specifically,  the  problem  of  enforc- 
ing suspensions  of  boxers.  Generally,  the  type  and  quality  of  records  maintained 
varies  widely  among  the  States.  Some  States  verify  submissions  and  keep  detailed, 
computerized  records  which  are  open  to  the  public  and  to  other  State  boxing  au- 
thorities. Other  States  accept  at  face  value  information  which  is  submitted  and  keep 
very  limited  records  on  dusty  three-by-five  cards  to  which  very  few  people  have 
access.  As  previously  discussed,  former  Ohio  boxing  commissioner,  William  J.  Fin- 
issi, testified  about  a  situation  involving  a  promoter  who  submitted  forged  medical 
records  to  the  State  commission.  The  Ohio  Commission  elected  only  to  suspend  the 
promoter's  license  rather  than  file  suit  against  him.  The  suspension  did  not  prevent 
the  promoter  from  participating  in  a  subsequent  boxing  event.69  But  the  most  sur- 
prising thing  may  be  that  the  forgery  was  ever  detected  at  all. 

Suspension  standards  vary  greatly  among  the  States,  and  due  to  limited  commu- 
nication among  the  various  State  boxing  authorities,  boxers  suspended  in  one  State 
can  often  subsequently  be  found  boxing  in  another  State. 

Most  States  have  knockout  rules  designed  to  protect  the  health  and  safety  of 
boxers  who  have  been  knocked  out  by  suspending  them  for  a  period  of  time,  but  the 
specific  time  of  the  suspension  varies  greatly  from  State  to  State.  These  suspensions 
can  be  "no  contact"  suspensions  which  prohibit  a  boxer  from  even  sparring  in  a 
gym,  or  may  be  limited  only  to  suspension  from  fighting  a  professional  bout.  Most 
States  also  are  empowered  to  suspend  a  boxer  permanently  because  of  "diminished 
capacity"  or  other  similar  language,  indicating  that  his  boxing  skills  have  waned  to 
a  point  where  he  is  no  longer  able  to  defend  himself  sufficiently  to  step  into  the  ring 
without  serious  risk  of  injury. 

One  example  cited  by  Randy  Gordon,  chairman  of  the  New  York  Athletic  Com- 
mission, in  his  hearing  testimony  on  August  11,  1992,  involved  a  1982  boxing  match 
held  on  board  the  U.S.S.  Yorktown,  which  was  anchored  in  the  harbor  of  Charles- 
ton, South  Carolina,  between  Billy  Collins  and  Raheem  Tayib.  The  fight  was  tele- 
vised by  ESPN  and  Gordon  was  then  the  boxing  analyst  broadcasting  the  fight. 
Gordon  recognized  "Tayib"  as  a  boxer  named  Eddie  Flanning  who  Gordon  had  just 
seen  six  nights  earlier  get  knocked  out  in  a  fight  in  New  York.  As  a  result  of  that 
knockout,  Flanning  was  suspended  for  45  days  under  New  York's  rules.  Less  than 
one  week  later  Flanning  was  fighting  in  South  Carolina  under  a  different  name. 
Gordon  advised  the  local  boxing  commission  and  the  promoter  (Top  Rank)  of  this 
fact  but  the  match  went  on  as  scheduled.  Tayib/Flanning  was  knocked  out  again  by 
Collins  and,  incredibly,  Tayib/Flanning  fought  a  third  time  several  days  later.70 

Another  example  provided  by  Gordon  in  his  hearing  testimony  is  that  of  Ricky 
Stackhouse,  a  middleweight  boxer  who  started  his  career  in  1984.  By  1989,  Stack- 
house's  boxing  skills  had  deteriorated  to  the  point  where  the  New  York  Boxing 


66  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  pp.  57-58. 

67  Testimony  of  Larry  Hazzard,   Sr.,   PSI   Hearings  on   Corruption   in   Professional   Boxing, 
August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  55. 

68  Testimony  of  anonymous  witness,  "Bobby,"  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional 
Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  p.  117. 

69  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  pp.  57-58. 

70  Ibid.,  p.  62. 


37 

Commission's  doctors  determined  he  should  not  be  allowed  to  box  again  in  New 
York  and  Stackhouse  was  suspended  for  life.  Stackhouse  then  fought  in  Florida  and 
was  knocked  out  with  one  punch  in  the  first  round.  Following  that  fight,  the  Florida 
Boxing  Commission  also  suspended  Stackhouse  for  life.  Yet,  even  after  having  been 
suspended  for  life  in  two  States,  Stackhouse  was  able  to  qualify  to  fight  in  Michigan 
on  May  2b\  1992.  He  fought  not  just  any  opponent,  but  the  IBF  world  middleweight 
champion,  James  Toney.  It  was  not  surprising  that  Stackhouse  took  a  dreadful  beat- 
ing before  being  knocked  out  in  the  third  round.  But  that  is  not  the  end  of  the 
Ricky  Stackhouse  story.  Seated  next  to  Gordon  at  the  August  11,  1992,  hearing  was 
Larry  Hazzard,  Sr.,  chairman  of  the  New  Jersey  Athletic  Control  Board,  who  heard 
Gordon  discuss  Stackhouse's  tale.  In  spite  of  that,  the  New  Jersey  Athletic  Commis- 
sion permitted  Stackhouse  to  fight  in  New  Jersey  one  month  later  on  September  11, 
1992,  against  Charles  Brewer. 

In  yet  another  similar  case,  Gordon  explained  to  staff  that  former  junior  welter- 
weight champion  Aaron  Pryor's  eyesight  had  so  deteriorated  at  the  end  of  his  career 
that  he  was  legally  blind  in  one  eye  and  as  a  result  none  of  the  major  boxing  States 
would  license  him  to  box.  Pryor,  however,  was  able  to  schedule  a  fight  in  Wisconsin. 
Knowing  Pryor's  medical  condition,  Gordon  sent  a  fax  directly  to  Wisconsin  Gover- 
nor Tommy  Thompson,  who  overruled  the  State  boxing  authority  and  canceled 
Pryor's  fight.  Subsequently,  however,  Pryor  went  to  court  and  won  the  right  to  fight 
when  the  court  determined  that  to  not  allow  Pryor  to  fight  would  be  discriminating 
against  a  handicapped  person. 

Another  boxer,  Troy  Jackson,  was  suspended  from  boxing  in  several  States.  Yet, 
he  was  able  to  continue  to  box  in  other  States,  so  that  he  ended  up  fighting  more 
bouts  after  his  suspensions  than  he  had  before  his  suspensions.71 

Drug  and  Steroid  Use  in  Boxing 

Another  health  and  safety  issue  which  the  current  system  of  State  regulation  does 
not  effectively  address  is  testing  for  drugs.  Drug  testing  varies  widely  among  the 
States,  and  no  State  tests  for  steroids.  Medical  experts  cite  the  dangers  which  drugs 
and  steroids  pose  to  boxers.  Marijuana,  for  example,  can  affect  a  boxer's  hand-eye 
coordination  for  five  to  seven  days  after  smoking  it.  Cocaine,  a  stimulant,  can  be 
particularly  dangerous  in  an  aerobic  sport  like  boxing  because  it  can  increase  the 
heart  rate,  causing  the  boxer  to  feel  stronger  and  hyped-up,  although  he  actually 
will  lose  stamina  earlier,  and  also  faces  an  increased  risk  of  excessive  bleeding. 

The  conventional  wisdom  among  many  in  boxing  has  been  that  anabolic  steroids 
would  not  enhance,  and  could,  in  fact,  hinder  the  performance  of  a  boxer.  This 
belief  appears  to  come  from  the  thought  that  anabolic  steroids  would  merely  make  a 
boxer  bigger  and  slower,  and  cause  him  to  become  "muscle-bound."  But  medical  evi- 
dence exists  to  the  contrary.  In  fact,  steroids  make  stronger  and  quicker  muscles, 
which  would  be  to  a  boxer's  advantage.  In  addition,  increasing  muscle  mass,  while 
important,  is  not  always  the  main  reason  athletes  take  steroids.  Steroids  enable  ath- 
letes to  train  more  intensely  for  longer  periods  of  time  without  suffering  the  loss  of 
muscle  mass  which  such  training  regimes  would  normally  produce.  As  such,  steroids 
can  help  prevent  the  effects  of  so-called  "over-training."  This  would  be  an  obvious 
advantage  for  a  boxer  training  for  an  upcoming  fight. 

In  addition  to  the  physical  characteristics  which  are  enhanced  by  steroid  use, 
these  substances  also  create  certain  psychological  effects.  According  to  medical  ex- 
perts, steroids  create  a  "macho"  high  and  very  aggressive  feeling  sometimes  called 
"anabolic  madness."  In  addition  to  the  danger  posed  to  the  steroid  user,  the  aggres- 
sive tendencies  which  steroids  trigger  create  a  situation  which,  in  boxing,  is  unfair 
and  potentially  dangerous  to  the  user's  opponent. 

There  are  numerous  harmful  side  effects  of  steroid  use.  These  include  liver  func- 
tion abnormalities,  benign  and  malignant  liver  tumors,  testicular  atrophy,  behavior- 
al changes  and  psychiatric  disorders.72 

Testing  is  a  deterrent  for  both  drugs  and  steroids,  but  drug  testing  requirements 
vary  widely  among  States,  with  many  States  requiring  no  drug  testing  at  all.  No 
States  currently  test  boxers  for  steroid  use. 

States  also  vary  widely  in  the  pre-fight  medical  exams  required  of  boxers.  New 
York  is  the  most  thorough,  requiring  an  EEG,  EKG,  CT  scan  and  dilated  eye  exam 
by  an  ophthalmologist.  Clearly,  it  is  expensive  to  run  such  a  battery  of  tests  on  all 
boxers.  However,  there  are  other  areas  where  ineffective  State  regulation  is  not  a 


71  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  Exhibit  72. 

72  Medical  Aspects  of  Boxing,  Barry  D.  Jordan,  M.D.,  editor,  CRC  Press,  Boca  Raton,  FL,  1993, 
p.  127. 


38 

matter  of  a  lack  of  finances.  For  example,  Nevada  is  a  State  which  is  generally  re- 
garded as  having  strict  medical  requirements,  e.g.,  Nevada  was  the  first  State  to 
conduct  mandatory  AIDS  testing  of  boxers.  However,  a  ring  physician  in  Nevada  is 
not  permitted  to  stop  a  fight  as  the  ring  physician  does  in  some  other  States;  that 
decision  in  Nevada  rests  with  the  referee. 

Conclusions 

1.  The  current  system  by  which  professional  boxing  is  regulated  in  the  United 
States  results  in  inconsistent  and  often  inadequate  regulations,  licensure  and  en- 
forcement, to  the  detriment  of  the  health  and  safety  of  professional  boxers  and  the 
fairness  of  the  sport. 

2.  The  international  sanctioning  bodies  effectively  operate  beyond  the  individual 
jurisdiction  of  State  regulatory  authorities.  Because  they  control  the  most  sought 
after  prizes  in  boxing,  i.e.,  world  titles  and  rankings,  they  are  frequently  able  to 
impose  their  own  rules  and  officials  on  State  regulatory  bodies,  which,  by  failing  to 
comply  with  these  demands,  risk  the  possibility  that  the  sanctioning  body  will  move 
the  fight  to  another,  more  compliant  jurisdiction.  Also,  the  sanctioning  bodies  are 
able  to  command  exorbitant  sanction  fees  from  boxers  without  providing  an  ade- 
quate accounting  of  what  they  do  with  this  money. 

3.  Alliances  between  key  promoters  and  sanctioning  bodies  are  used  to  manipu- 
late rankings — thereby  enabling  promoters  to  control  a  boxer's  career,  rather  than 
having  the  rankings  determined  primarily  by  the  results  of  events  inside  the  ring. 

4.  While  many  States  have  adopted  professional  boxing  regulations,  those  regula- 
tions are  generally  ineffective  because  of  a  lack  of  reach  of  individual  States'  en- 
forcement efforts  beyond  their  own  borders.  For  example,  efforts  by  individual  State 
regulatory  agencies  to  regulate  business  relations  among  boxers,  managers  and  pro- 
moters are  ineffective  because  multiple  contracts  are  frequently  employed  to  evade 
specific  State  regulatory  requirements. 

5.  Boxing  is  replete  with  conflict  of  interest  situations  involving  promoters,  man- 
agers and  boxers,  in  which  the  boxers  are  frequently  disadvantaged. 

6.  Mismatches  between  boxers  of  vastly  different  skill  levels  frequently  occur,  cre- 
ating potentially  grave  danger  for  the  less  skilled  boxer.  State  regulatory  efforts  to 
limit  such  mismatches  have  been  ineffective. 

7.  The  system  of  State  regulation  results  in  wide  variations  in  the  suspension  cri- 
teria used  among  the  States.  As  a  result,  a  boxer  can  be  suspended  in  one  State  and 
fight  in  another  State.  The  failure  of  States  to  communicate  clearly  and  consistently 
among  one  another  also  allows  boxers  to  evade  suspension  rules.  The  lack  of  a  cen- 
tral registry  of  boxers'  records  and  medical  data  makes  it  difficult  for  States  to  ef- 
fectively track  such  information. 

8.  Variation  in  scoring  rules  mean  that  the  same  fight  can  be  scored  differently  in 
different  States,  a  fact  which  is  unfair  to  both  boxers  and  fans. 

In  summary,  the  current  system  of  State-based  regulation  of  professional  boxing 
is  ineffective  in  protecting  the  health,  safety  and  pocketbooks  of  professional  boxers. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  gentlemen.  I  appreciate  your  being 
here  today. 

Our  next  panel  of  witnesses  are  all  physicians  who  have  a  great 
deal  of  background  and  experience  with  the  medical  aspects  of 
boxing.  These  doctors  include  Dr.  Jack  Battalia,  who  is  a  general 
surgeon  but  also  serves  as  Chairman  of  the  Oregon  Boxing  Com- 
mission. 

Dr.  Barry  Jordan  is  Assistant  Professor  of  Neurology  and  Public 
Health  at  the  Cornell  Medical  School,  Medical  Director  of  the  New 
York  State  Athletic  Commission,  and  Team  Physician  for  the 
U.S.A.  Amateur  Boxing  Federation.  Dr.  Jordan  is  also  the  author 
of  the  textbook  "Medical  Aspects  of  Boxing." 

Finally,  we  are  very  pleased  to  have  Dr.  Timothy  Ward,  who  is 
Assistant  Professor  of  Orthopedic  Surgery  at  the  University  of 
Pittsburgh  and  Chairman  of  the  Medical  Advisory  Board  of  the 
Pennsylvania  State  Athletic  Commission. 


39 

Gentlemen,  if  you  would  please  come  forward,  and  as  you  heard, 
all  witnesses  must  swear  in  respect  to  their  testimony,  so  will  you 
please  continue  rising  and  raise  your  right  hand? 

Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  give  before  the  Subcommittee 
will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so 
help  you  God? 

Dr.  Jordan.  I  do. 

Dr.  Battalia.  I  do. 

Dr.  Ward.  I  do. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  gentlemen.  Please  be  seated. 

We  are  delighted  to  have  each  and  every  one  of  you  here  and  ap- 
preciate your  taking  the  time  to  help  on  what  we  consider  to  be  a 
very  important  problem. 

Dr.  Jordan,  we  would  call  upon  you  to  first  give  your  testimony.  I 
would  say,  gentlemen,  that  if  you  abbreviate  your  testimony  your 
full  statement  will  be  included  as  if  read. 

Dr.  Jordan,  please. 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  BARRY  JORDAN,1  ASSISTANT  PROFESSOR  OF 
NEUROLOGY  AND  PUBLIC  HEALTH,  CORNELL  UNIVERSITY 
MEDICAL  COLLEGE;  MEDICAL  DIRECTOR,  NEW  YORK  STATE 
ATHLETIC  COMMISSION;  AND  TEAM  PHYSICIAN,  U.S.A.  AMA- 
TEUR BOXING  FEDERATION 

Dr.  Jordan.  Ladies,  gentlemen,  Senators,  boxing  is  an  inherently 
dangerous  sport  that  can  be  made  safer  via  improved  medical  su- 
pervision and  safety  legislation.  The  mainstay  of  these  improve- 
ments require  medical  research  to  understand,  help  prevent,  and 
minimize  brain,  eye,  and  other  medical  injuries  associated  with 
boxing. 

The  major  concern  confronting  boxing  today  is  chronic  brain 
injury.  Chronic  brain  injury  represents  the  cumulative  long-term 
effects  and  consequences  of  professional  boxing  and  is  probably  the 
condition  that  afflicts  Muhammad  Ali. 

Approximately  20  percent  of  retired  professional  boxers  experi- 
ence chronic  brain  injury.  Boxers  exhibiting  chronic  brain  injury 
may  experience  slurred  speech,  memory  loss,  personality  changes, 
difficulty  with  walking,  and/or  Parkinson's  disease. 

A  long  exposure  to  boxing  or  a  long  duration  of  career  may  in- 
crease the  risk  of  chronic  brain  injury.  Accordingly,  limiting  the 
duration  of  a  boxer's  career  may  reduce  the  risk  of  chronic  brain 
injury.  In  addition,  poor  performance  may  be  a  risk  factor  for 
chronic  brain  injury.  Therefore,  it  appears  that  boxers  with  exces- 
sive losses  would  have  an  increased  risk  of  chronic  brain  injury. 
Currently  in  New  York  State,  professional  boxers  are  medically 
suspended  for  six  consecutive  losses  or  three  consecutive  losses  sec- 
ondary to  a  technical  knockout  or  knockout. 

Research  on  chronic  brain  injury  will  identify  the  risk  factors  for 
this  condition  which  in  turn  will  provide  criteria  for  legislative 
changes  that  may  prevent  or  limit  serious  illness.  Formal  research 
on  chronic  brain  injury  associated  with  boxing  may  also  lead  to  a 
better  understanding  of  the  pathophysiology  of  Alzheimer's  disease. 


1  The  prepared  statement  of  Dr.  Jordan  appears  on  page  149. 


40 

There  are  several  pathological  similarities  between  the  brains  of 
patients  with  Alzheimer's  disease  and  boxers  with  chronic  brain 
injury.  The  similarities  may  reflect  similar  pathophysiological 
mechanisms.  Furthermore,  head  trauma  has  been  postulated  to  be 
a  risk  factor  for  Alzheimer's  disease. 

Although  chronic  brain  injury  associated  with  boxing  has  been 
recognized  since  1928,  minimal  medical  research  has  been  conduct- 
ed to  further  our  understanding  of  this  syndrome.  There  are  sever- 
al factors  that  have  limited  medical  research  in  boxing.  First,  there 
has  been  a  lack  of  government  monies  made  available  for  research, 
because  boxing  has  a  low  funding  priority.  Furthermore,  a  large 
representative  population  of  boxers  that  could  effectively  be  stud- 
ied is  lacking.  The  establishment  of  a  national  registry  of  all  pro- 
fessional boxers  will  provide  a  sample  population  of  boxers  that 
could  be  evaluated. 

Unfortunately,  a  substantial  proportion  of  the  medical  communi- 
ty has  abandoned  all  efforts  and  concerns  to  improve  the  safety 
standards  in  boxing.  Several  medical  societies,  including  the  AMA, 
have  proposed  the  abolition  of  the  sport.  However,  banning  the 
sport  will  not  make  it  safer  because  it  will  continue  underground 
as  bootleg  boxing.  This  bootleg  boxing  will  occur  in  basements, 
bars,  and  back  rooms  and  would  totally  lack  medical  supervision. 
This  would  result  in  a  substantially  higher  injury  rate  and  death 
rate. 

Accordingly,  I  feel  it  is  necessary  to  improve  the  sport  of  boxing 
and  make  it  safer  by  advancing  medical  research. 

Thank  you. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Dr.  Jordan. 

Dr.  Battalia. 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  JACK  E.  BATTALIA,1  CHAIRMAN,  OREGON 
BOXING  COMMISSION,  AND  CHAIRMAN,  INTERNATIONAL 
BOXING  FEDERATION  MEDICAL  COMMISSION 

Dr.  Battalia.  As  stated,  I  am  a  semi-retired  surgeon.  My  avoca- 
tion for  35  years  has  been  boxing  safety.  I  was  a  member  of  the 
Portland,  Oregon  Boxing  and  Wrestling  Commission  for  29  V2  years, 
actively  participating  in  amateur  boxing  for  15  years  as  well.  Five- 
and-one-half  years  ago,  Oregon's  law  was  changed  and  I  became  a 
member  of  the  Oregon  Boxing  and  Wrestling  Commission,  serving 
as  chairman  for  the  past  2  years. 

As  an  aside,  I  might  say  that  the  Speaker  of  the  House  in  Oregon 
is  trying  to  deregulate  boxing  and  trying  to  eliminate  the  commis- 
sion, so  we  have  a  fight  on  our  hand  for  standardization  there,  be- 
lieve me. 

For  the  past  8  years,  I  have  also  been  the  chairman  of  the  IBF/ 
USBA  Medical  Committee. 

When  first  appointed  to  the  Portland  Commission,  I  knew  noth- 
ing about  boxing  but  my  orders  from  the  new  mayor  were,  don't  let 
them  get  hurt.  That  has  been  my  priority  for  35  years.  We  still  had 
one  detached  retina  and  two  subdural  hematomas,  fortunately  with 
good  recoveries. 


1  The  prepared  statement  of  Dr.  Battalia  appears  on  page  150. 


41 

Boxing  is  not  the  dangerous  sport  that  some  would  like  to  be- 
lieve. It  has  dropped  from  No.  5  to  No.  9  in  the  past  few  years.  This 
has  come  about  because  of  the  sweat  and  tears  of  a  lot  of  dedicated 
boxing  people. 

The  rate  of  deaths  in  horse  racing  is  the  highest,  followed  by  sky 
diving,  hang  gliding,  and  auto  racing.  Football  has  many  times  the 
rate  of  deaths  per  thousand  engaged  in  the  sport  than  boxing,  but 
if  any  sports  writer  or  politician  even  suggested  altering  the  sport, 
the  revolution  would  make  the  Civil  War  look  like  a  garden  party. 

One  of  the  most  important  rule  changes  in  boxing  which  has  re- 
duced head  injuries  has  been  the  placement  of  Ensolite  safety  mats 
under  the  ring  canvas.  An  egg  dropped  from  four  feet  will  not 
break  on  an  Ensolite  mat.  Oregon  was  one  of  the  first  States  to 
mandate  the  mat  for  all  boxing,  pro  and  amateur,  and  we  got  the 
IBF  to  follow  suit.  The  leading  cause  of  boxing  deaths  has  been  the 
head  striking  the  floor  and  not  the  gloved  fist. 

As  far  as  gloves  are  concerned,  there  have  been  some  dramatic 
changes.  First,  the  use  of  Ensolite  instead  of  horsehair  padding. 
Second,  the  tie-down  thumb  has  reduced  eye  injuries  and  essential- 
ly prevented  Bennett's  fractures  of  the  thumb. 

Now  this  is  a  good  time  to  correct  some  widespread  misconcep- 
tions. 

One,  the  safest  fight  as  far  as  head  injuries  are  concerned  is  no 
glove,  but  the  contestants  would  be  cut  to  ribbons  and  hand  frac- 
tures would  be  epidemic. 

Two,  a  heavier  glove  does  not  reduce  head  injuries,  it  increases 
them.  For  every  two  ounces  of  increased  glove  weight,  it  is  the 
equivalent  of  putting  a  roll  of  pennies  in  the  boxer's  hand.  The  in- 
creased padding  reduces  cuts  but  the  increased  weight  increases 
the  force  hitting  the  head  and  thus  slapping  the  brain  against  the 
skull.  I  can  demonstrate  that  right  here.  With  just  a  hit  here,  you 
see  the  brain  bouncing  around. 

In  my  estimation,  the  time  has  come  to  eliminate  boxing  glove 
weight  standards.  I  have  asked  Dr.  Barry  Jordan  if  they  can  re- 
search the  optimum  density  and  thickness  of  the  padding  to  arrive 
at  the  safest  glove.  Then  the  gloves  would  all  have  the  same  thick- 
ness and  the  only  difference  would  be  the  width  of  the  glove,  de- 
pending on  the  size  of  the  hand  in  the  various  weight  classes. 

Three,  finally  the  misconception  of  headgear.  Every  do-gooder 
asks,  why  don't  we  make  all  boxers  wear  headgear  like  the  ama- 
teurs? The  headgear  is  a  dangerous  effort  to  make  some  people 
look  like  they  know  what  they  are  doing.  Again,  the  padding  re- 
duces the  cuts  and  cauliflower  ears.  However,  the  headgear  adds 
weight  to  the  head  and  thus,  when  struck,  the  inertia  slows  the 
movement  of  the  head  and  thus  the  movable  brain  inside  the  skull 
slaps  around  more  and  you  get  contrecoup  injuries. 

Contrecoup,  gentlemen,  is  a  fact  that  when  the  head  is  hit  on  one 
side,  there  can  first  be  an  injury  at  the  site  of  the  blow,  but  at  the 
same  time,  the  brain  is  moving  in  its  fluid  envelope  and  you  will 
get  an  injury,  sometimes  even  worse  than  the  contact  injury,  at  the 
opposite  side  of  the  brain.  If  you  put  more  weight  on  the  head,  such 
as  a  headgear,  then  the  inertia  keeps  the  head  from  moving  as  rap- 
idly as  it  should.  Therefore,  a  blow  on  that  head  will  end  up  with 


42 

the  skull  staying  slower  but  the  brain  moving  faster  and  you  will 
get  more  injury  on  the  opposite  side. 

I  deplore  the  use  of  headgear.  If  somebody  can  make  one  with  no 
weight  to  it,  that  would  be  wonderful. 

Fourth,  the  four-strand  ring  has  reduced  injuries  from  boxers 
falling  through  the  ropes  but  the  lowest  rope  needs  to  be  moved 
back  about  six  inches  so  a  falling  boxer  doesn't  catch  his  neck  on 
the  bottom  strand.  I  am  positive  that  the  Korean  boxer  who  died  in 
California  a  few  years  ago  was  killed  by  the  rabbit  punch  whiplash 
when  his  neck  struck  the  rope  rather  than  the  KO  punch.  This 
injury  was  dramatic  when  reviewed  on  tape. 

The  standards  for  physical  exams  and  eye  exams  are  out  there, 
but  only  a  few  States  in  the  IBF  and  ABC  are  following  them.  The 
IBF  Medical  Committee  and  its  available  consultants  are  always 
available  to  evaluate  a  boxer  and/or  his  suspension. 

In  conclusion,  I  wish  to  point  out  the  inconsistency  of  the  Federal 
Government  and  boxing  safety.  We  physicians  in  boxing  are  all 
aware  that  acute  and  chronic  boxing  injuries  are  more  apt  to  occur 
after  the  age  of  35  or  after  a  certain  number  of  fights  because  of 
slowed  reflexes  which  can't  be  measured  by  present  technology. 
The  feds  say,  make  it  safer,  but  when  we  try  to  stop  all  boxing  at 
the  age  of  35  they  scream,  age  discrimination.  For  every  George 
Foreman,  who  is  a  physical  exception,  there  are  a  thousand  boxers 
out  there  who  are  getting  hurt  by  being  allowed  to  continue  too 
long.  Help  us  put  an  age  limit  on  boxing. 

Thank  you. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you. 

Dr.  Ward. 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  TIMOTHY  W.  WARD,1  CHAIRMAN,  MEDICAL 
ADVISORY  BOARD,  PENNSYLVANIA  STATE  ATHLETIC  COMMIS- 
SION 

Dr.  Ward.  Despite  a  popular  public  misconception,  boxing  does 
not  rank  high  on  a  risk  of  sporting  endeavors  which  are  associated 
with  acute  death.  The  prevalence  of  boxing-related  deaths  has  been 
estimated  to  be  around  0.13  per  1,000  participants.  This  compares 
very  favorably  to  other  sports,  as  has  already  been  mentioned. 
While  death  in  the  boxing  ring  is  certainly  tragic  when  it  occurs, 
current  medical  supervision  is  able  to  almost  eliminate  this  event 
if  appropriate  medical  guidelines  are  followed. 

Clearly,  the  singularly  most  important  and  derisive  medical  issue 
surrounding  the  sport  of  professional  boxing  has  to  do  with  the  oc- 
currence and  possible  prevention  of  chronic  brain  injury  among  its 
participants. 

Chronic  traumatic  boxers  encephalopathy  is  a  constellation  of 
different  types  of  cerebral,  cerebellar,  psychiatric,  and  Parkinson- 
ian symptoms.  Its  time  of  onset,  rate  of  progression,  and  clinical 
manifestations  are  quite  variable.  It  may  first  make  its  appearance 
after  a  particularly  difficult  match,  at  the  end  of  a  lengthy  career, 
or  not  until  20  to  25  years  after  the  cessation  of  a  boxer's  career. 


1  The  prepared  statement  of  Dr.  Ward  appears  on  page  151. 


43 

As  stated,  the  rate  of  progression  of  this  syndrome  is  quite  vari- 
able. Clearly,  there  are  many  individuals  who  have  only  a  minor 
static  involvement,  but  there  are  others  that  have  relentless  pro- 
gression eventually  requiring  permanent  psychiatric  institutional- 
ization. 

The  clinical  manifestation  of  this  syndrome  is  exceedingly  vari- 
able. Early  signs  and  symptoms  include  slurring  of  speech,  diminu- 
tion in  cognitive  function,  particularly  with  respect  to  perception 
and  memory.  Dementia  can  become  exceedingly  severe  and  eventu- 
ally indistinguishable  from  severe  Alzheimer's  syndrome.  Cerebel- 
lar symptoms  lead  to  poor  coordination  and  unsteadiness  in  gait. 
There  may  be  weakness  of  the  upper  extremities  or  dragging  of  a 
leg.  Parkinsonian  symptoms  arise  which  lead  to  immobility  of 
facial  appearance,  slowness  of  movement,  shuffling  gait,  rigidity, 
and  tremors.  Psychiatric  symptoms  result  in  profound  personality 
deterioration  with  generalized  lack  of  awareness  and  occasional 
violent  behavior.  The  syndrome  complex  may  initially  be  difficult 
to  diagnose  accurately  because  of  the  vast  array  of  signs  and  symp- 
toms. 

The  occurrence  of  this  syndrome  is  much  more  common  in  pro- 
fessional than  in  amateur  boxers.  It  is  directly  related  to  the 
length  of  a  boxer's  career  and  probably  not  to  the  number  of  times 
he  has  been  knocked  down  or  out.  The  occurrence  of  the  syndrome 
increases  with  increasing  age  of  the  ex-boxer. 

An  excellent  medical  study  reported  in  1969  by  Roberts  which 
looked  at  retired  British  professional  boxers  who  had  competed 
prior  to  World  War  II  estimated  the  prevalence  of  this  syndrome  to 
be  around  17  percent.  There  is  no  definitive  work  available  to  tell 
us  the  modern  day  prevalence  of  this  syndrome. 

While  modern  day  medical  intervention  probably  has  diminished 
the  frequency  of  this  syndrome,  there  are  disturbing  trends  which 
continue  to  be  present.  Studies  which  have  utilized  sophisticated 
CT  or  MRI  imaging  as  well  as  neuropsychological  testing  continue 
to  demonstrate  a  high  incidence  of  subclinical  structural  findings. 
Whether  these  abnormal  imaging  findings  and  neuropsychological 
tests  are  the  precursors  to  a  full-blown  encephalopathy  syndrome 
can  only  be  answered  with  a  longitudinal  follow-up  of  these 
modern  day  boxers. 

I  believe  that  there  are  at  least  seven  areas  in  which  the  sport  of 
boxing  could  be  improved  from  a  medical  standpoint,  thereby  di- 
minishing the  occurrence  of  injury.  These  measures  include  better 
medical  supervision;  shorter  competitions;  more  consistent  medical 
administrative  control  of  the  sport  both  nationally  and  internation- 
ally; more  knowledgeable  trainers,  managers,  promoters,  and  refer- 
ees; appropriate  gloves,  rings,  posts,  and  headgear;  and  improved 
boxer  education. 

Better  medical  supervision  can  be  subdivided  into  an  improve- 
ment in  the  quality  of  ringside  physicians,  institution  of  mandatory 
medical  suspensions,  institution  of  a  serial  imaging  screening  pro 
gram,  assurance  of  acute  life  support  measures,  and  development 
of  a  comprehensive  evacuation  plan  and  neurosurgical  support  in 
case  of  an  emergency. 

Ringside  physicians  should  become  more  knowledgeable  about 
the  sport  of  boxing.  There  is  an  abundance  of  medical  literature 


44 

available  in  the  way  of  refereed  and  non-refereed  articles,  books, 
and  book  chapters  to  educate  these  physicians. 

A  physician  should  have  freedom  at  ringside  to  stop  a  contest  if 
he  or  she  feels  that  a  boxer  is  in  jeopardy.  There  should  be  no  in- 
terference in  this  regard  from  the  State  Boxing  Commission  or  any 
other  concerned  parties. 

Medical  suspensions  should  be  strict  and  uniform.  Currently,  a 
suspension  in  one  State  may  either  not  be  appreciated  or  ignored 
in  another  State.  Suspensions  should  also  apply  to  sparring  ses- 
sions as  well  as  competition. 

Serial  head  scanning  and  ophthalmological  examinations  should 
be  instituted  in  order  to  detect  early,  subtle  abnormalities  and 
thereby  hopefully  be  able  to  prevent  these  abnormalities  from  de- 
veloping into  more  serious  problems. 

A  mechanism  of  medical  supervision  which  is  uniform  nationally 
should  be  instituted.  Such  supervision  is  not  currently  possible 
within  the  financial  budgets  of  most  State  Boxing  Commissions. 
Enhanced  funding  is  clearly  necessary  to  ensure  uniform  high-qual- 
ity medical  coverage. 

It  is  important  that  trainers,  managers,  promoters,  and  especial- 
ly referees  all  become  better  educated  concerning  the  medical  risks 
inherent  in  boxing.  The  referee  must  recognize  and  understand  the 
serious  implications  of  the  so-called  groggy  state  in  which  fighters 
frequently  find  themselves.  A  contest  should  not  be  allowed  to  con- 
tinue when  one  boxer  has  been  concussed  and  is  not  adequately 
able  to  defend  himself. 

Besides  chronic  brain  injury  in  boxing,  serious  injury  is  also 
noted  in  the  musculoskeletal  system  and  in  the  ocular  system.  The 
incidence  of  retinal  tears  in  professional  boxers  has  been  estimated 
to  be  somewhere  around  13  to  24  percent.  This  incidence  is  related 
to  the  number  of  bouts  fought  and  to  the  number  of  losses  sus- 
tained. Unfortunately,  the  boxer  is  usually  asymptomatic  when  the 
injury  first  occurs  and  therefore  would  only  be  picked  up  with  ap- 
propriate ophthalmological  screening  examinations.  I  would  concur 
with  published  recommendations  advising  annual  ophthalmologic 
exams. 

Enactment  of  the  preventive  measures  which  I  have  mentioned 
with  respect  to  brain  injury  would  also  apply  to  prevention  of 
ocular  or  musculoskeletal  injury. 

In  summary,  I  believe  that  professional  boxing  is  a  very  difficult 
sporting  endeavor  requiring  significant  dedication  and  hard  work. 
The  participants  expose  themselves  to  significant  medical  risks, 
particularly  with  respect  to  neurologic  and  ocular  injury.  The 
boxing  establishment,  particularly  the  medical  community,  is  at- 
tempting to  reduce  these  risks  but  the  effectiveness  of  these  risk 
reduction  measures  cannot  be  determined  until  they  are  fully  im- 
plemented. 

As  is  true  with  most  complex  social  issues,  and  boxing  is  surely 
more  than  simply  a  medical  issue,  there  is  room  for  compromise 
and  improvement.  Diligent  medical  participation  will  continue  to 
enhance  boxing  safety.  Ongoing  expert  care,  sophisticated  neurolog- 
ical and  ocular  monitoring,  and  high-quality  retrospective  and  pro- 
spective medical  studies,  in  conjunction  with  the  institution  of  na- 
tionally-accepted medical  standards,  will  eventually  provide  an  in- 


45 

disputable  data  base  which  society  can  use  to  help  make  an  educat- 
ed, unemotional  decision  on  how  it  chooses  to  deal  with  the  sport  of 
boxing. 

Ultimately,  it  must  be  society  that  determines  if  the  objectives  of 
boxing  are  appropriate  for  our  culture  and  what  level  of  inherent 
medical  risks  we  are  prepared  to  accept  as  an  unfortunate  byprod- 
uct of  this  sport. 

Thank  you. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Dr.  Ward. 

I  think  the  testimony  of  all  three  of  you  is  extremely  helpful.  I 
gather  from  what  you  say,  that  with  adequate  medical  guidelines, 
the  health  and  safety  of  the  fighters  could  be  substantially  im- 
proved. 

Dr.  Battalia,  if  I  understood  what  you  are  saying,  in  the  case  of 
Oregon,  instead  of  strengthening  the  rules  and  guidelines,  the  prob- 
lem is  you  are  moving  in  the  opposite  direction.  There  is  a  move  to 
do  away  with  even  the  State  commission,  is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Battalia.  This  is  exactly  correct.  And  without  mentioning 
the  name,  the  speaker  of  our  house  is  very  much  against  our 
boxing  commission  because  we  have  been  doing  our  job  and  in  so 
doing  our  job,  we  banned  as  a  promoter  his  next-door  neighbor  and 
he  is  a  sleaze,  to  put  it  very  bluntly,  bad  checks,  advertising 
matches  that  the  boxers  had  never  been  even  notified,  and  trying 
to  slip  in  people  that  in  the  National  files  shouldn't  be  boxing.  So 
we  just  banned  him. 

Well,  we  have  a  bill  in  this  year  to  put  a  tax  on  pay-per-view  be- 
cause that  is  what  one  of  the  sources  that  we  need  just  for  operat- 
ing expenses.  We  are  a  self-funded  commission.  Well,  he  has  put 
our  bill  in  his  favorite  bury  committee,  so  we  have  put  in  another 
bill.  If  we  can't  operate  properly,  we  want  boxing  and  professional 
wrestling  banned  from  the  State  of  Oregon.  We  do  not  want  un- 
regulated boxing. 

Senator  Roth.  In  other  words,  the  current  level  is  inadequate 
and 

Dr.  Battalia.  Well,  I  would  say  our  current  level  right  now,  but 
our  funds  are  running  out,  is  very  adequate.  I  would  put  our  physi- 
cals with  Barry's,  but  we  are  trying  to  be  stopped. 

Senator  Roth.  Dr.  Jordan. 

Dr.  Jordan.  In  New  York,  we  are  probably  in  the  forefront  of 
medical  regulation  in  boxing,  probably  in  the  world.  One  of  the 
problems  I  have  come  across  is  that  we  don't  have  much  difficult 
implementing  safety  standards  within  New  York.  If  a  boxer  in  New 
York,  say,  is  knocked  out,  we  routinely  suspend  the  boxer  from 
anywhere  from  30  to  90  days.  In  addition,  we  require  that  they 
have  a  repeat  CAT  scan  and  EEG  before  they  are  allowed  to  box 
again.  Now  unfortunately,  if  this  is  a  boxer  that  comes  from  out  of 
State,  after  their  suspension  period  is  up  they  may  box  in  another 
State  without  that  CAT  scan  or  EEG. 

I  must  admit,  though,  that  New  York  State  has  afforded  us  the 
monies  to  regulate  the  sport  of  boxing  properly  by  requiring  that 
all  our  boxers  have  CAT  scans,  EEGs,  dilated  eye  exams,  and  elec- 
trocardiograms before  they  fight,  and  that  is  done  on  an  annual 
basis. 


46 

Senator  Roth.  Dr.  Jordan,  I  think  you  raise  a  very  important 
point.  If  I  understand  what  you  are  really  saying,  we  really  need 
uniform  guidelines  and  rules  throughout  this  country. 

Dr.  Jordan.  We  need  uniform  guidelines  and  we  also  need — I 
think  even  more  so  is  the  enforcement  of  the  guidelines. 

Senator  Roth.  Uniform  enforcement. 

Dr.  Jordan.  Enforcement,  but  one  of  the  problems  of  that  is  the 
cost.  When  I  talk  to  other  State  commissions,  ideally  we  have  it 
pretty  good  in  New  York  in  the  sense  that  we  are  able  to  perform 
all  these  tests  on  the  boxers.  But  most  States  have  not  allocated 
the  money  to  perform  these  tests.  I  think  part  of  the  issue  is  finan- 
cial and  it  is  how  much  money  is  going  to  be  made  available  for  us 
to  properly  medically  regulate  the  sport. 

Now,  for  instance,  say  if  there  was  a  uniform  standard  imple- 
mented throughout  the  country  and  say  if  it  didn't  require  the  use 
of  a  CAT  scan  or  an  EEG,  now  does  that  mean  that  in  New  York 
we  would  have  to  stop  doing  CAT  scans  and  EEGs,  which  I  think 
have  been  very  helpful?  And  in  fact,  by  us  performing  CAT  scans 
on  boxers  before  they  receive  a  license,  I  am  convinced  that  I  have 
saved  at  least  two  or  three  boxers'  lives  by  a  pre-fight  CAT  scan 
that  was  abnormal  that  I  am  90  percent  certain  that  if  they  would 
have  gotten  in  the  ring  it  would  have  resulted  in  some  type  of  cata- 
strophic event. 

So  I  think  there  is  a  role  for  the  CAT  scan  or  some  type  of  neur- 
oimaging  procedure  as  a  pre-fight  scanning  for  boxing.  If  we  had 
uniform  standards  throughout  the  country,  then  you  would  have  to 
say  that  every  State  in  the  country  would  have  to  have  a  CAT 
scan.  From  the  monetary  standpoint,  I  am  not  certain  how  feasible 
that  would  be. 

Senator  Roth.  Let  me  ask  you  this.  What  would  be  wrong  with 
having  minimum  standards  but  no  bar  for  additional  requirements 
if  the  State  commission  so  chose? 

Dr.  Jordan.  I  think  that  is  definitely  necessary. 

Senator  Roth.  Dr.  Battalia,  go  back  to  the  question,  do  we  need 
minimum  uniform  standards? 

Dr.  Battalia.  Absolutely. 

Senator  Roth.  Can  that  be  done  through  State  commissions? 

Dr.  Battalia.  Pardon. 

Senator  Roth.  Can  that  be  done  through  State  commissions? 

Dr.  Battalia.  Well,  somebody  has  to  say  to  the  State,  you  shall 
have  this  minimum  standard.  I  have  been  to  meetings  for  these 
past  35  years.  The  ABC  was  formed  with  the  idea  of  forming  stand- 
ards. I  was  one  of  the  charter  members.  But  when  the  individual 
commissioners  would  go  home,  it  never  was  accomplished  in  their 
own  bailiwick  and  it  is  frustrating. 

IBF  says  the  same  thing.  I  mean,  we  have  a  good  set  of  standards 
which  will  apply  to  your  champions,  but  how  about  the  other  four 
preliminary  fights  on  any  card?  The  IBF  doesn't  have  any  control 
over  them,  and  there  are  some  real,  real  bad  pre-fights  that  you 
see. 

Senator  Roth.  Would  you  agree  that  there  needs  to  be  some  kind 
of  a  national  organization  to  help  bring  about  the  kind  of  rules  and 
regulations  and  the  enforcement  we  need? 


47 

Dr.  Battalia.  Well,  I  certainly  think  there  has  to  be  a  rule  that 
says  the  commissions  will  go  on  a  specific  standard.  As  to  who  sets 
that  standard,  I  am  a  little  bit  ambivalent  for  that,  I  would  just  as 
soon  not  have  the  Federal  Government  involved.  I  think  this  idea 
of  privatization,  of  a  private  committee,  but  the  rule  sets  up  that 
there  shall  be  a  committee  formed  like  this  and  all  States  will  have 
to  comply  or  not  have  boxing.  I  would  be  totally 

Senator  Roth.  Many  of  us  would  like  to  see  the  sport  create  its 
own  national  organization,  but  if  you  look  at  the  last  30  years,  or 
go  back  to  whenever  Senator  Kefauver  had  his  hearings,  I  can't  see 
a  great  deal  of  progress  being  made.  So  the  question  is,  how  do  we 
bring  about  the  goal,  the  objective  you  are  talking  about  if  the  in- 
dustry or  sport  won't  do  it  itself? 

Dr.  Battalia.  I  don't  think  the  industry  or  the  sport  can,  very 
frankly,  can  actually  do  it  for  itself  unless  there  is  something  out 
there  that  says  they  can  do  it.  This  is  the  thing.  IBF  can't  do  it 
because  they  have  no  control  in  any  other  State.  In  other  words,  it 
is  strictly  a  rating  organization.  And  State  A  won't  listen  to  the 
suspensions  that  State  B  has. 

Senator  Roth.  Who  else  is  there  besides  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment? I  am  sympathetic  to  what  you  are  saying,  but  I  am  trying  to 
determine  how  we  can  bring  about  the  desired  result  if  we  don't 
move  to  the  Federal  Government. 

Dr.  Battalia.  There  certainly  has  to  be  a  Federal  law  that  says 
there  will  be  a  standardization,  and  how  you  would  go  about  the 
mechanics,  I  would  like  to  have  it  out  of  Washington,  but  maybe 
that  is  the  only  way  to  go. 

One  way  that  could  possibly  be  done,  with  ABC,  which  is  the  As- 
sociation of  Boxing  Commissions,  give  them  the  authority  to  make 
all  States  comply  or  the  USBA  portion  of  the  IBF,  which  was  the 
parent  organization  to  try  to  protect  American  boxers,  let  them 
have  the  authority  to  say,  this  will  be  the  minimum.  That  would  be 
another,  which  would  be  like  having  a  baseball  commissioner. 

Senator  Roth.  What  we  are  talking  about  in  my  proposed  legisla- 
tion is  the  creation  of  a  public  corporation  that  would  be  financed 
by  the  sport  itself  and  run  much  like  baseball  in  that  you  would 
have  a  very  strong  czar. 

Dr.  Battalia.  I  think  that  would  work.  I  would  be  in  favor  of  it. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Dr.  Battalia. 

I  want  to  get  to  Dr.  Ward  in  a  minute,  but  Dr.  Jordan,  you  have 
something  you  want  to  say? 

Dr.  Jordan.  I  agree  that  I  think  it  should  be  implemented  on  a 
Federal  level. 

I  just  wanted  to  reemphasize  one  of  the  points  made  earlier. 
Most  of  the  lay  population,  when  they  look  at  boxing,  they  see  the 
high-profile  boxers  such  as  your  Sugar  Ray  Leonards,  Tysons,  Rid- 
dick  Bowes,  and  by  a  long  shot  those  individuals  are  not  the  major- 
ity of  the  boxing  population.  And  for  years,  I  have  been  fearful  of 
what  the  outcomes  are  of  boxers  that  are  your  4-round,  6-round 
boxers  that  may  fight  for  10  years,  and  in  10  years  they  may  earn 
$20,000,  and  then  at  the  end  of  their  career  they  suffer  from  neuro- 
logical problems.  I  think  these  are  the  type  of  things  we  have  to 
prevent. 


48 

Senator  Roth.  Dr.  Ward,  would  you  care  to  comment  on  the  need 
for  some  kind  of  a  professional  corporation  or  organization  to  estab- 
lish and  enforce  basic  rules? 

Dr.  Ward.  Well,  I  think  that  clearly  boxing  is  an  inherently  dan- 
gerous sport.  I  think  its  risks  can  be  diminished  with  appropriate 
medical  supervision.  I  agree  that  the  State  of  New  York  is  at  the 
forefront  in  that  movement,  and  I  do  also  agree  that  there  should 
be  uniform  national  medical  standards  and  I  think  that  there  are 
appropriately-educated  people,  medical  individuals,  in  boxing  that 
have  a  good  idea  of  what  these  standards  should  be  at  this  point  in 
time. 

Now  how  that  is  implemented  is  another  issue,  I  guess.  It  takes 
money,  obviously,  to  implement  these  standards  and  to  do  it  appro- 
priately. Dr.  Jordan  has  the  benefit  of  having  State  funds  available 
to  obtain  CT  scans,  MRI  scans,  EEGs,  things  like  that.  As  we  are 
well  aware,  medicine  is  very  expensive  these  days.  These  tests 
don't  come  cheaply. 

Currently,  in  our  State  we  have  no  mechanism  other  than  forc- 
ing promoters  or  managers  to  conform  to  some  of  these  things. 
That  is  always  exceedingly  difficult  to  do. 

So  I  feel  that  there  should  be  medical  standards,  they  should  be 
enforced  nationally,  someone  has  to  pay  for  it.  If  it  can't  be  done  at 
each  State  level,  if  the  States  cannot  come  together  as  a  group  and 
control  themselves  and  enforce  these  standards,  then  I  don't  see 
any  other  alternative  than  to  having  it  enforced  at  a  Federal  level. 

I  have  read  some  of  the  transcripts  of  what  you  have  proposed, 
Senator  Roth,  in  your  bill.  I  don't  have  any  objections  to  it.  As  I 
read  it,  you  are  not  proposing  to  micromanage  boxing,  you  are  pro- 
posing to  have  some  fairly  reasonable  guidelines  to  improve  health 
and  safety.  So  I  have  no  problem  with  that. 

I  think  that  the  medical  situation  in  boxing  has  to  improve.  I 
think  there  are  individuals  out  there  that  are  working  to  improve 
it,  but  it  is  a  difficult  task  when  you  have  to  fight  the  battle  your- 
self at  each  State  level.  If  we  can  do  it  at  the  State  level,  that  is 
fine.  If  not,  then  another  agency  or  branch  of  government  may 
have  to  intervene. 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  I  think  most  of  us  would  agree  that  the  best 
of  all  worlds  would  be  self-regulation.  The  problem  is  despite  hear- 
ings held,  as  I  say,  way  back  in  the  days  of  Senator  Kefauver,  you 
heard  what  Bill  Richardson  and  my  friend  Senator  Dorgan  have 
done  on  the  House  side,  despite  all  these  efforts  down  through  the 
years,  we  don't  see  any  self-regulation  happening. 

And  the  thing  that  is  of  such  concern,  if  I  understand  you  gentle- 
men, is  that  with  the  proper  rules  on  health  and  safety,  you  can 
minimize  the  risk — a  dangerous  sport,  as  you  say,  but  you  can  min- 
imize the  risk,  so  that  it  seems  to  me  time  is  of  the  essence,  that 
we  need  action  and  we  need  some  way  of  standardizing  it  through- 
out the  country  to  ensure  that  the  rules  are  complied  with  and  not 
avoided  by  hop-skipping. 

We  also  have  the  problem  John  McCain  has  brought  up  of  the 
international  situation. 

I  would  like  to  say  that  I  thought  it  could  be  done  by  self-regula- 
tion and  I  would  hope  that  even  if  we  move  towards  some  kind  of  a 
public  corporation,  that  down  the  road  the  industry  or  the  sport 


49 

would  take  it  over  itself,  just  as  they  have  in  other  sports.  It  seems 
to  me  that  is  desirable. 

Well,  my  time  is  up  and  I  want  to  call  on  Senator  Dorgan. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Dr.  Battalia,  you  testified  about  something  I  had  heard  before, 
and  I  am  curious  whether  the  other  two  doctors  agree  with  you. 
You  indicated  that,  contrary  to  popular  belief,  the  larger  a  boxing 
glove,  the  more  likely  it  is  to  cause  serious  damage  to  the  fighter. 
You  say  the  safest  fight  would  be  between  fighters  wearing  no 
gloves. 

Dr.  Battalia.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Dorgan.  The  larger  the  glove  and  the  more  padding,  the 
more  dangerous  it  is. 

Dr.  Battalia.  It  is  not  the  padding,  it  is  the  amount  of  weight. 

Senator  Dorgan.  The  amount  of  weight 

Dr.  Battalia.  Yes. 

Senator  Dorgan  [continuing].  Or  the  force — the  weight  and  the 
force,  I  guess.  You  have  a  larger  mass  with  the  same  force  hitting  a 
surface. 

Dr.  Battalia.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Dorgan.  You  are  all  saying  there  should  be  standards.  I 
am  wondering,  do  you  agree  on  what  the  standards  should  be?  Do 
you,  Dr.  Jordan,  and  do  you,  Dr.  Ward,  agree  with  Dr.  Battalia  that 
there  probably  ought  to  be  uniform  weight  with  respect  to  boxing 
gloves  in  all  classes  of  fighters?  And  do  you  agree  with  his  conten- 
tion that  the  larger  the  glove,  the  more  potential  for  damage? 

Dr.  Jordan.  Well,  I  agree  that  there  needs  to  be  some  type  of 
uniform  standard  established.  My  personal  opinion  is  that  really 
the  size  of  the  glove  really  doesn't  matter  that  much,  not  in  the 
sense  that — not  to  get  too  technical,  but  if  you  remember  your  old 
physics  formula  is  force  equals  mass  times  acceleration.  The  force 
of  a  punch  is  usually  determined  mostly  by  the  acceleration,  not  so 
much  the  mass.  So  whether  it  is  an  eight-ounce  glove,  a  ten-ounce 
glove,  I  don't  think  it  makes  much  difference. 

For  example,  if  Mike  Tyson  was  to  swing  at  you  with  full  force, 
he  would  knock  you  out  regardless  of  whether  the  glove  was  eight 
ounces,  ten  ounces,  or  12  ounces. 

Senator  Dorgan.  But  the  reason  I  am  asking  this  question  is 
that  it  is  sort  of  contrary  to  what  you  believe  as  a  kid.  As  a  kid,  my 
parents  bought  us  boxing  gloves,  myself  and  my  brother,  and  the 
biggest  possible  glove  was  kind  of  like  batting  each  other  with  a 
pillow.  It  was  very  large,  very  heavily  padded,  and  therefore  it 
didn't  hurt  much.  I  happen  to  know  that  had  my  brother  and  I 
used  tiny  little  leather  gloves  that  we  used  to  use  around  the  barn 
to  haul  hay,  it  would  have  hurt  a  lot  if  we  had  hit  each  other  with 
exactly  the  same  punch.  That  sort  of  defies  what  you  are  telling  us. 

There  was  a  subdural  hematoma  in  Texas  in  1991.  There  was 
some  analysis  of  that  by  a  commission  in  Texas,  which  really  made 
no  specific  recommendations  other  than  the  suggestion  that  heav- 
ier or  larger  gloves  be  used.  This  analysis  moves  in  exactly  the  op- 
posite direction. 

Dr.  Battalia.  Can  I  answer  that? 

Senator  Dorgan.  Sure. 


50 

Dr.  Battalia.  I  ended  up  writing  to  the,  I  think  it  was  the  mayor 
of  the  city  where  that  death  happened,  and  pointed  this  out  to  him 
and  I  got  a  nice  letter  back  because  he  was  not  aware  of  this. 

The  whole  story  on  that  was  those  were  little  115-pound  guys, 
and  both  of  them  wanted  6-ounce  gloves  because  an  8-ounce  glove 
on  those  little  hands  were  sloppy,  they  didn't  like  them,  they  never 
did  like  them,  and  it  was  agreed  to  let  them  use  6-ounce  gloves, 
which  on  those  little  hands  were  well  padded. 

The  minute  that  there  was  this  medical  problem  there,  every- 
body wanted  to  blame  the  glove.  I  don't  think  it  happened  that  way 
at  all,  and  interestingly,  within  the  next  60  days  there  was  another 
fight,  similar  weighted  individuals,  with  10-ounce  gloves  in  which 
the  boxer  had  subdural.  He  recovered  partially. 

One  of  my  friends  over  in  England  had  a  fight  at  the  same  time, 
a  little  bit  bigger  guys  with  some  12-ounce  gloves,  and  there  was  a 
subdural  hematoma  and  they  almost  lost  that  one,  all  within  60 
days,  gloves  going  from  6  ounces  to  12. 

My  feeling  is  we  are  using  Ensolite  now  instead  of  horsehair.  It 
used  to  be  with  horsehair,  that  was  the  standard.  It  filled  up  with 
sweat,  it  got  very  heavy,  it  was  a  dangerous  glove,  and  some  of 
these  boxers  knew  how  to  move  the  horsehair  around  so  they  had 
bare  knuckles  sticking  out  of  there  and  they  could  cut  a  guy  up 
real  well. 

I  think  we  have  the  materials,  and  this  is  what  Barry  and  I  have 
talked  about.  There  are  different  densities  of  Ensolite.  We  should 
know  which  density  is  the  best,  and  it  is  probably  going  to  be  two 
densities,  one  softness  for  protecting  the  hand  and  the  other  the 
padding  for  the  blow.  But  what  density,  what  thickness,  and  we 
stop  right  there.  The  only  difference  in  size  would  be  the  width 
that  you  need.  It  is  going  to  make  a  little  difference  in  weight,  but 
you  don't  need  to  keep  getting  heavier  and  heavier  gloves. 

When  you  leave  the  meeting  here,  take  a  roll  of  nickels  or  a  roll 
of  pennies  in  your  hand  and  hit  a  cushion  and  see  what  happens 
with  that  extra  amount  of  weight.  Even  though  you  are  not  a 
boxer,  you  will  suddenly  realize  you  jar  the  dickens  out  of  your 
hand. 

Also,  the  boxing  glove  does  protect  the  hand  and  an  individual 
that  is  boxing  bare-handed  cannot  hit  as  hard  because  he  doesn't 
have  the  protection  of  his  hand.  He  will  break  it  up. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Well,  I  appreciate  that  answer. 

Let  me  just  ask  the  Chairman  whether  there  is  another  way  to 
address  these  problems.  Couldn't  this  be  some  sort  of  private  enter- 
prise, a  non-governmental  regulation?  The  fact  is,  all  of  us  are 
dreaming  if  we  think  boxing  is  going  to  clean  itself  up,  if  we  think 
boxing  is  going  to  be  a  self-regulatory  sport  in  which  we  have  a 
regulatory  body  with  the  authority  to  tell  the  various  States  what 
they  must  do. 

Now  Mr.  Jordan,  you  come  from  New  York.  You  have  a  lot  of 
fights  in  New  York,  a  lot  of  fights  in  New  Jersey,  a  lot  of  fights  in 
Nevada.  In  many  of  the  other  States  where  there  are  fights,  the 
boxing  commission  is  one  person  who  probably  doesn't  know  any- 
thing about  the  sport.  He  or  she  just  shows  up  at  the  fight,  grins 
from  ear  to  ear  just  being  around  promoters  and  fighters,  thinks  it 


51 

is  a  terrific  deal,  but  has  never  administered  any  safety  rules  or 
has  no  rules  and  regulations.  I  mean,  that  is  more  typical. 

I  saw  a  fight  one  night,  a  boxing  card,  where  in  the  undercard  I 
saw  the  same  pair  of  trunks  come  out  three  times [Laughter.] 

And  I  knew  it  was  the  same  pair  of  trunks  because  it  was  stained 
with  blood  in  exactly  the  same  place  and  didn't  fit  two  of  the 
people  that  wore  them.  These  are  people  who  are  hauled  in  from  50 
miles,  200  miles  away  and  paid  $500  because  a  promoter  needed  an 
opponent.  And  one  of  them,  it  turned  out,  didn't  get  a  purse  be- 
cause he  was  on  marijuana.  It  was  pretty  clear  to  everybody  that 
there  was  something  wrong  with  this  guy.  That  ended  in  the  first 
round.  This  was  simply  about  money. 

The  shame  of  all  of  this  is  it  is  simply  about  money  by  people 
who  are  using  people,  sending  them  into  the  ring  in  very  unsafe 
conditions. 

The  underpinning  here  has  to  be  a  central  registry  of  all  boxers 
who  enter  a  ring  to  fight  in  a  professional  fight.  In  this  way,  the 
boxer's  name  and  identification  is  part  of  the  central  registry  and 
we  know  whether  they  were  knocked  out  the  night  before  or  the 
week  before  in  New  Jersey  and  whether  they  are  eligible  to  fight, 
therefore,  the  next  Saturday  in  Kansas.  Right  now,  these  same 
boxers  are  able  to  fight  under  different  names  or  under  the  same 
name  because  the  people  in  Kansas  don't  communicate  with  the 
people  in  New  Jersey. 

My  point  is  this  is  entirely  driven  by  money.  It  is  increasingly 
concentrated  in  a  few  hands  who  have  an  enormous  amount  to  lose 
if  they  don't  provide  these  opponents  and  they  want  the  fight  to  go 
on.  There  must  be  some  kind  of  regulatory  approach. 

Now  Congressman  Richardson  and  I,  I  guess  maybe  10  years  ago, 
actually,  introduced  the  first  bill  established  a  national  commission 
in  the  Labor  Department,  the  funding  for  which  would  have  come 
from  an  assessment  against  the  purses,  against  the  match.  The  var- 
ious boxing  matches  would  have  paid  a  certain  fee  from  those 
matches  into  a  pool  to  fund  the  commission. 

This  would  not  be  a  giant  bureaucracy  and  would  not  cost  the 
taxpayers  an  enormous  amount  of  money.  Instead  it  would  estab- 
lish uniform  safety  standards  across  the  country,  uniform  licensing 
standards,  a  whole  series  of  things  that  are  necessary,  including  a 
central  registry  to  put  boxing  on  the  same  footing  that  we  would 
expect  it  to  be  on  with  some  of  the  other  professional  sports. 

So  I  really  appreciate  the  testimony  you  have  given.  All  three  of 
you  have  contributed,  I  think,  to  this  discussion. 

Dr.  Battalia,  you  wanted  to  respond. 

Dr.  Battalia.  Yes,  Senator.  There  is  a  gentleman  out  there  by 
the  name  of  Citro  who,  as  a  hobby,  has  put  together  a  computer 
file  on  all  boxers  that  information  is  sent  to  him.  It  is  the  biggest 
file  in  the  world.  And  any  time  of  the  day  or  night,  you  can  call 
that  man  and  for  $15  he  will  get  up,  go  down  and  put  in  the  tapes, 
and  give  you  the  information  on  any  boxer,  and  some  of  them  he 
can  give  you  the  information  under  three  different  names  and  four 
different  Social  Security  numbers.  He  knows  them  that  well. 

There  you  can't  blame  the  promoter,  it  is  a  crazy  boxer,  and  they 
are  funny  people,  some  of  them.  You  can't  get  them  to  quit. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Had  you  ever  heard  of  Mouse? 


52 

Dr.  Battalia.  I  heard  of  that  one,  yes. 

Senator  Dorgan.  I  mean,  he  is  relatively  famous  as  the  man  who 
has  been  knocked  out  more  than  any  other  man  in  the  history  of 
boxing.  He  has  fought  under,  I  think  he  said,  half-a-dozen  names. 

Dr.  Battalia.  Commissions  don't  use  this  information.  That  is 
the  thing  that  drives  me  crazy.  Fortunately,  I  have  an  executive 
that — I  don't  know  the  names  when  they  are  going  to  come  into 
town  but  he  calls  Citro,  he  may  call  him  in  the  course  of  a  fight  ten 
times.  I  want  to  know  about  this  one,  I  want  to  know  about  this 
one,  and  some  of  them  he  just  says,  no  way,  and  that  is  it. 

Senator  Dorgan.  And  the  promoter  also  has  and  has  had  histori- 
cally a  stake  in  trying  to  describe  the  opponent  as  having  a  record 
that  is  vastly  different  than  the  actual  record.  If  they  are  going  to 
bring  in  a  Palooka  that  has  won  one  fight  and  lost  20  in  a  row,  who 
is  going  to  want  to  participate  in  paying  for  that  fight?  So  they 
bring  in  the  same  fighter  and  say  that  the  person  is  a  12-and-3 
fighter  with  nine  knockouts — deliberate  distortion  of  the  facts,  of 
course,  but  it  helps  make  the  fight.  And  this  person  comes  in,  gets 
knocked  out  in  the  second  round  and  gets  his  $500  with  the  poten- 
tial of  getting  severely  injured. 

Dr.  Battalia.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Dorgan.  And  the  person  does  it  because  it  is  the  way 
life  is.  There  is  nothing  else  to  do  because  he  is  an  opponent.  That 
is  the  way  he  makes  his  living. 

Dr.  Battalia.  Yes. 

Senator  Dorgan.  And  they  do  it  the  next  week  as  well,  because 
getting  knocked  out  twice  in  a  week  or  two  weeks  is  not  a  big 
thing,  at  least  for  people  who  are  desperate  for  money. 

Let  me  commend  the  Chairman.  I  appreciate  your  indulging  me 
with  the  time,  but  I  really  appreciate  the  testimony  of  all  three  of 
you.  I  think  it  is  excellent. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Senator  Dorgan. 

Senator  Cohen. 

Senator  Cohen.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  think  we  have  to  clarify  the  use  of  words  here.  Dr.  Battalia,  you 
said  you  would  like  to  see  some  guidelines  but  I  think  what  you 
really  mean  is  enforcement.  A  guideline  to  me  is  a  recommenda- 
tion about  what  should  be  done.  Enforcement  ensures  what  must 
be  done  gets  done.  So  we  are  not  talking  about  guidelines,  we  are 
talking  about  regulations.  We  would  have  to  have  regulations 
which,  by  definition,  would  be  enforceable. 

Staff  has  indicated  that  Nevada  does  not  allow  the  ring  physician 
to  stop  a  bout.  Is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Battalia.  I  think  that  is  correct. 

Senator  Cohen.  That  is  correct. 

Dr.  Battalia.  That  is  correct  in  our  State  too. 

Senator  Cohen.  Is  that  something  you  all  support,  preventing  a 
ring  physician  from  stopping  a  bout? 

Dr.  Battalia.  I  do  not  want  a  ring  physician  to  stop  the  bout  be- 
cause when  that  happens — my  cohorts  here  may  disagree  with 
me — but  what  worries  me  when  that  is  going  on  is  immediately  the 
referee  who  is  right  there,  he  is  face  to  face,  he  can  see  a  change  in 
the  boxer's  eyes,  he  will  wait  then  for  the  doctor  to  say,  stop  the 


53 

fight,  and  there  may  be  20  more  blows  thrown  before  he  finally  de- 
cides it  is  time  to  stop  it. 

Senator  Cohen.  Don't  ring  physicians  usually  stop  fights  in  the 
corner  on  cuts? 

Dr.  Battalia.  That  is  fine.  I  have  never  had  a  referee,  when  I 
have  looked  at  a  cut  and  just  nodded,  or  even  if  somebody  gets  cut, 
he  turns  over  at  ringside  and  I  go  like  this  [indicating  with  a  nod 
and  also  a  shake  of  his  head],  he  will  stop  it  right  then.  But  official- 
ly, he  should  be  the  one  who  stops  the  fight. 

If  you  have  a  referee  that  will  not  take  the  word  of  a  physician 
looking  in  the  corner,  I  don't  want  that  referee  around  any  place  in 
this  world.  He  is  dangerous. 

Senator  Cohen.  Dr.  Jordan 

Dr.  Battalia.  The  first  safety  factor  for  a  boxer  is  the  referee. 
The  physician  is  No.  2. 

Senator  Cohen.  OK.  Dr.  Jordan. 

Dr.  Jordan.  In  New  York,  we  do  have  the  opportunity  for  the 
physician  to  stop  the  fight  in  the  middle  of  a  round.  I  feel  that  it  is 
an  additional  safety  factor.  The  physician  is  not  there  to  take  the 
place  of  the  referee,  but  on  occasion,  like  all  humans,  referees  can 
make  errors  and  they  may  not  stop  the  fight  in  time.  This  way,  the 
physician  can  jump  up  on  the  apron  after  you  jump  into  the  ring 
and  stop  the  fight.  There  have  been  several  times  I  have  actually 
stopped  fights  myself. 

We  don't  have  any  problems  with  the  referees,  having  the  ring- 
side physician  having  that  opportunity,  and  in  fact,  it  probably 
keeps  referees  on  their  toes  a  little  bit  more. 

Senator  Cohen.  Dr.  Ward. 

Dr.  Ward.  Well,  I  think  it  is  essential  that  a  physician  have  the 
authority  to  stop  a  bout.  In  an  ideal  situation,  in  a  very  competent 
referee,  it  should  never  be  a  problem  because  the  referee  is  closest 
to  the  action.  They  should  be  stopping  these  bouts  when  it  is  appro- 
priate. But  it  is  an  imperfect  world  and  that  doesn't  always 
happen. 

Despite  the  fact  that  an  individual  can  be  involved  in  the  sport 
of  boxing  30,  40  years  as  a  referee,  I  must  tell  you,  I  don't  think 
there  is — frequently  referees  don't  appreciate  what  a  concussed 
state  is.  Most  do,  but  there  are  some  that  don't.  There  are  some 
that  are  a  step  behind  the  action  at  times.  We  have  all  witnessed 
that  on  television,  various  other  avenues,  so  I 

Senator  Cohen.  I  watched  the  Tommy  Morrison  fight  and  I  won- 
dered where  the  referee  was 

Dr.  Ward.  Right. 

Senator  Cohen  [continuing].  When  Morrison  was  just  being  pum- 
meled  while  he  was  helpless  on  the  ropes. 

Dr.  Ward.  So  I  feel  it  is  essential  that  a  physician  have  the  au- 
thority to  do  that.  With  all  due  respect  to  all  the  seasoned  referees 
that  there  are  in  the  world,  I  don't  believe  there  is  any  referee 
more  capable  than  myself  to  understand  when  someone  is  con- 
cussed and  when  someone  is  at  risk  for  further  injury. 

So  if  I  am  working  a  bout,  I  want  to  have  the  authority  to  stop  a 
bout  if  I  feel  that  it  should  be  stopped.  So  I  think  it  is  very  impor- 
tant that  the  physician  have  that  authority. 

Senator  Cohen.  Dr.  Battalia. 


54 

Dr.  Battalia.  Could  I  add  to  that?  Barry  and  Dr.  Ward  over 
here,  I  know,  have  to  work  with  a  lot  more  referees  than  I  do.  We 
are  a  small  boxing  State.  But,  in  some  States  they  don't  know  who 
the  doctor  is  going  to  be  hardly  before  the  bout.  It  may  be  a  pedia- 
trician. If  he  sees  two  drops  of  blood,  he  is  frantic.  That  can  happen 
too. 

If,  with  what  you  gentlemen  plan,  you  have  a  standardization 
also  of  what  it  takes  to  be  a  ringside  physician,  then  I  would  have 
no  problem  with  it.  But  sometimes  untrained  physicians  are  apt  to 
stop  an  important  bout  too  soon  because  there  is  some  blood  flow- 
ing. 

And  again,  as  I  said,  I  don't  want  the  referee  thinking,  well, 
what  is  the  doctor  thinking,  is  he  going  to  stop  it  or  isn't  he?  Once 
in  a  while,  I  will  have  one  of  my  referees  come  over  and  say,  you 
know,  I  am  sorry  I  stopped  that  one.  Maybe  I  should  have  let  it  go 
a  little  bit  further.  And  I  will  jump  on  their  toes  and  say,  you  have 
never  heard  me  complain  when  you  stop  a  bout.  If  you  stopped  it 
too  soon,  fine,  we  can  have  a  rematch  3  months  down  the  line.  You 
stop  it. 

Senator  Cohen.  Last  year,  Bob  Arum  testified  before  the  Sub- 
committee that  Jose  Sulaiman  used  the  threat  of  disbarment  for  an 
eye  injury  to  force  Julian  Jackson  to  resign  with  Don  King.  Have 
any  of  you  ever  heard  of  other  instances  of  medical  examinations 
being  used  or  misused  in  this  fashion? 

Dr.  Jordan.  Not  in  New  York  State. 

Dr.  Battalia.  No,  I  haven't. 

Senator  Cohen.  Dr.  Battalia,  this  was  something  of  an  education- 
al experience  for  me,  as  it  was  for  others,  in  terms  of  the  lighter- 
weight  gloves.  I  was  wondering,  does  the  same  principle  apply  to 
football  helmets?  If  you  take,  for  example,  the  Jim  Thorpe  leather 
helmets  they  used  to  wear  back  in  the  1920s  or  1930s  and  compare 
that  to  the  helmets  they  wear  today,  would  you  say  that  head  inju- 
ries have  been  substantially  reduced  by  the  football  helmet  of 
today  versus  that  of  the  Jim  Thorpe  days? 

Dr.  Battalia.  There  has  been  a  lot  of  work.  Wasn't  it  Cornell 
that  did  the  initial  work  on  the  helmet,  and  they  started  using  En- 
solite  as  a  basket  on  the  inside  and  one  of  the  things  they  wanted 
to  do  was  to  put  an  Ensolite  pad  in  the  front  because  of  two  line- 
men getting  together  and  clanking  heads. 

But  here  you  have  the  helmet  is  only  moving  at  the  speed  of  the 
body,  it  is  not  being  swung  on  the  end  of  an  arm  that  long. 

Senator  Cohen.  Really? 

Dr.  Battalia.  I  hope  not.  [Laughter.] 

Senator  Cohen.  In  football  they  have  a  thing  called  a  clothesline 
tackle  which  clearly  causes  injuries. 

Dr.  Battalia.  Well,  no,  but  you  were  asking  about  the  weight  of 
the  helmet. 

Senator  Cohen.  If  that  principle  is  right,  lighter-weight  gloves 
would  increase  the  risk  of  bone  injuries  or  hand  injuries.  Would  it 
change  boxing  by  allowing  or  mandating  lighter-weight  gloves? 
Would  that  force  fighters  to  go  for  less  head  shots  and  more  body 
shots? 

Dr.  Jordan.  Well,  I  think  the  issue 

Senator  Cohen.  Or  is  it  that  boxers  don't  care? 


55 

Dr.  Jordan.  Well,  I  think  one  of  the  issues  is  more  complicated 
than  that.  In  my  testimony,  I  mentioned  the  lack  of  research,  and 
to  be  honest  with  you,  medical  research  in  boxing  has  been  very 
poor.  So  if  we  were  to  have  some  type  of  legislative  change  to  im- 
plement changes  in  equipment,  we  really  wouldn't  know  if  there  is 
a  change  in  the  prevalence  because  the  statistics  and  the  data  is 
not  kept  now. 

So  I  think  this  discussion  also  highlights  the  problems  with  the 
lack  of  research.  Like  in  football,  the  headgear  or  the  helmet  in 
football  has  been  researched  extensively,  whereas  the  headgear  in 
boxing  has  not  been  investigated  at  all.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  was 
reviewing  a  court  case,  the  suit  against  Everlast,  and  they  had  a 
research  department  researching  the  standards  of  the  headgear 
and  they  hadn't  done  any  research  in  the  last  15  years. 

Senator  Cohen.  We  haven't  done  much  research  in  the  way  of 
padding  versus 

Dr.  Jordan.  Right. 

Senator  Cohen  [continuing].  Non-padding  on  the  gloves,  is  that 
correct? 

Dr.  Battalia.  That  is  correct,  other  than  they  do  know,  they  did 
do  some  research  at  Texas,  I  believe  it  was. 

Dr.  Jordan.  Annapolis. 

Dr.  Battalia.  Pardon. 

Dr.  Jordan.  Annapolis. 

Senator  Cohen.  Dr.  Battalia,  you  talked  about  a  friend  in  Eng- 
land. How  do  other  countries  deal  with  boxing  in  terms  of  regula- 
tion? 

Dr.  Battalia.  Well,  England  is  quite  well  regulated.  Dr.  White- 
son  there  is  the  chief  physician  and  he  has  something  like  50  doc- 
tors and  it  is  the  entire  country  is  operated.  But  very  interestingly, 
there  is  not  a  national  commission  or  State  commissions.  Actually, 
their  commissioned  bodies  are  really  made  up  of  managers  and  pro- 
moters, of  all  the  crazy  things,  but  it  is  regulated  within  its  own. 
But  I  know  the  medicals  are  pretty  good  because  of  Whiteson.  He 
cracks  a  real  whip. 

Senator  Cohen.  Thank  you  very  much.  My  time  is  up. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Senator  Cohen. 

Gentlemen,  I  think  there  may  be  additional  questions  so  we  will 
keep  the  record  open  in  case  anyone  wants  to  submit  a  question  in 
writing. 

I  want  to  express  my  great  appreciation  for  all  three  of  you  being 
here.  I  think  your  testimony  is  extremely  helpful  and  we  would 
like  to  continue  working  with  you  as  we  seek  to  bring  about  some 
improvement  in  the  areas  you  have  discussed. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

At  this  time,  I  would  like  to  call  our  next  witness,  Seth  G.  Abra- 
ham. Mr.  Abraham  is  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer  of 
Time  Warner  Sports,  a  subsidiary  of  HBO.  I  want  to  thank  him  for 
his  willingness  to  assist  the  staff  in  the  course  of  this  investigation 
and  for  his  testimony  here  today.  He  knows  a  great  deal  about  the 
role  TV  plays  in  boxing  today.  We  look  forward  to  his  testimony. 

As  you  know,  Mr.  Abraham,  we  swear  in  all  witnesses,  so  if  you 
would  please  rise  and  raise  your  right  hand. 


56 

Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  present  to  this  Subcommittee 
will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so 
help  you  God? 

Mr.  Abraham.  I  do. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you.  Please  be  seated  and  proceed. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SETH  G.  ABRAHAM,1  PRESIDENT,  TIME  WARNER 

SPORTS  (HBO) 

Mr.  Abraham.  Good  morning,  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the 
Subcommittee. 

My  name,  as  you  have  heard,  is  Seth  Abraham  and  I  am  Presi- 
dent of  Time  Warner  Sports,  a  wholly-owned  subsidiary  of  Home 
Box  Office,  Inc.  For  the  past  15  years,  I  have  directed  the  negotia- 
tions for  the  telecasting  of  professional  prize  fights  on  Home  Box 
Office.  Additionally,  2  years  ago  HBO  launched  a  boxing  pay-per- 
view  network  we  call  TVKO,  which  I  also  oversee.  Between  our  2 
networks,  we  broadcast  approximately  20  professional  prize  fights 
each  year. 

Senator  McCain  asked  earlier  what  was  the  response  to  the  Com- 
mittee's bill  among  the  boxing  community.  Steve  Levin  answered 
that  there  is  a  problem  in  getting  support  for  the  bill's  specifics.  I 
will,  during  the  course  of  my  testimony  and  probably  during  the 
questions  and  answers,  support  particular  specifics  in  your  bill, 
eight  things  in  particular  that  I  unequivocally  support. 

I  would  also  like  to  thank  the  Committee  for  giving  me  the  op- 
portunity to  express  my  views  and  support  in  large  measure  what 
you  are  trying  to  do. 

As  you  well  know,  Congressional  committees  have  conducted 
boxing  probes  in  the  1950s,  the  1960s,  the  1970s,  the  1980s,  but  I  do 
believe  that  Senator  Roth's  bill  has  the  potential  to  significantly 
improve  boxing  both  inside  and  outside  the  ring. 

I  would  also  make  a  historical  note  that  96  years  ago  next 
week — I  believe  you  have  hearings  next  Wednesday — was  the  first 
full-length  moving  pictures  taken  of  a  prize  fight  in  Carson  City, 
Nevada,  so  boxing  and  television  and  the  movies  have  been  around 
together  for  a  while. 

First,  let  me  discuss  the  issues  inside  the  ring.  I  applaud  your  ef- 
forts to  reform  the  conduct  of  the  matches  themselves.  If  you  are 
successful,  you  will  achieve  two  very  noteworthy  goals.  Men  who 
box  for  a  living  will  be  safer  with  more  thoughtful  safety  protec- 
tions, and  equally  significant,  fans  who  support  the  sport  will  have 
a  higher  regard  for  boxing's  credibility.  In  that  measure,  everybody 
gains,  the  prize  fighters  and  the  fans.  It  is  for  that  very  fundamen- 
tal reason  that  we  strongly  support  legislation. 

There  are  several  provisions  of  your  bill  which  we  feel  are  par- 
ticularly important  and  deserve  elaboration  because  they  enhance 
the  safety  of  the  boxers  and  the  conduct  of  what  happens  inside  the 
ropes. 

Senator  Dorgan  mentioned  a  minute  ago,  and  we  strongly  urge 
and  support,  an  international  computerized  clearinghouse  which 
should  be  established  as  a  repisitory  for  fighters'  medical  records, 


1  The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Abraham  appears  on  page  153. 


57 

their  won  /loss  records,  videotapes  of  all  televised  prize  fights  for 
reference  purposes  by  everybody  interested  in  matches.  Home  Box 
Office  and  TVKO  would  be  pleased  to  make  available  all  video- 
tapes of  our  bouts  for  this  purpose. 

Second,  annual  licenses  should  be  mandatory  for  boxers,  referees, 
and  judges. 

Third,  3-year  certificates  of  registration  for  managers,  promoters, 
and  trainers  should  be  required. 

Fourth,  a  key  provision  should  be  there  to  protect  and  ensure  the 
safety  of  fighters  by  establishing  uniform  rules  to  govern  the  con- 
duct, the  refereeing,  the  scoring  of  professional  prize  fights. 

Fifth,  a  Federal  Boxing  Commission  should  also  impose  stand- 
ards for  emergency  medical  services  at  every  professional  match. 

Sixth,  a  Federal  Boxing  Commission  should  establish  minimum 
standards  for  full  physical  and  neurological  examinations  and 
minimal  standards  for  the  actual  participation  in  a  professional 
prize  fight. 

Seventh,  the  boxing  community,  not  the  Federal  Boxing  Commis- 
sion, should  explore  how  to  establish  a  life,  accident,  and  health  in- 
surance fund  for  professional  boxers.  A  portion  of  the  total  reve- 
nues generated  by  each  professional  prize  fight,  including  televi- 
sion, should  be  set  aside  for  this  purpose. 

And  eighth,  the  Federal  Boxing  Commission  should  establish 
minimum  standards  for  the  manufacture  and  use  of  boxing  equip- 
ment, as  the  gentleman  behind  me  discussed  several  moments  ago. 

I  wish  to  point  out  to  you  that  these  reforms  all  have  to  do  with 
the  conduct  of  a  fight  inside  the  ring  and  the  very  physical  safety 
of  the  men  who  box  for  a  living.  They  deserve  to  be  safeguarded 
because  boxing  is  a  hard  way  to  earn  an  easy  dollar. 

Earlier  in  this  statement,  I  suggested  to  the  Committee  that  the 
scope  of  your  probe  should  include  as  well  the  study  of  what  goes 
on  outside  of  the  ropes  that  form  the  square  in  which  fighters  go  to 
work.  It  is  their  office.  That,  too,  needs  careful  study  and  consider- 
ation. 

I  have  met  twice  with  representatives  of  this  Committee  suggest- 
ing to  them  an  examination  of  how  the  business  of  boxing  conducts 
itself.  I  have  sought  to  paint  a  detailed  picture  of  how  boxing  nego- 
tiations are  conducted  and  how  television  distribution  deals  are 
made.  I  have  also  responded  to  Subcommittee  questions  about  how 
boxers  are  ranked,  unranked,  deranked,  not  ranked  at  all,  and  how 
the  four  governing  organizations  govern  or  not. 

These  ranking  organizations  are,  unfortunately,  often  part  of  the 
problem,  not  part  of  the  solution  as  they  should  be.  Fans  support 
boxing  like  any  other  sport.  If  fans  lose  their  belief  in  boxing's  le- 
gitimacy, the  entire  industry  of  boxing,  the  prize  fighters,  the  man- 
agers, the  promoters,  the  arenas,  the  television  networks  suffer. 
Truly,  fans  are  the  organ  grinders,  we  are  just  the  monkeys. 

I  believe  revised  standards  and  uniform  regulations  for  the  con- 
duct of  boxing's  business  should  be  examined  carefully.  In  contrast 
to  the  health  and  safety  and  related  issues  discussed  above,  I  do 
not  believe  that  sweeping  regulation  of  the  business  of  boxing  is 
necessary  or  appropriate.  There  are,  however,  at  least  two  areas 
which  merit  your  attention:  (1),  how  do  the  four  governing  bodies 


65-875  0-93-3 


58 

impact  the  sport,  and  (2),  how  conflicts  of  interest  may  adversely 
affect  the  prize  fighters  themselves. 

Quite  possibly,  the  most  arcane  and  pernicious  rules  of  the  self- 
professed  governing  organizations  are  how  they  rate  and  rank  prize 
fighters  within  17,  not  16,  but  17  weight  classes.  Champions  of 
some  organizations  are  not  even  ranked  in  competing  organiza- 
tions. The  undefeated  heavyweight  champion  of  the  world,  Riddick 
Bowe,  is  a  nonperson  in  the  WBC,  the  World  Boxing  Council.  In 
1992,  Riddick  Bowe  was  actually  lowered  in  the  WBC's  ratings 
from  No.  1  to  No.  2,  and  the  fighter  who  replaced  him,  Donovan 
"Razor"  Ruddock,  lost  both  of  his  fights  during  the  like  period  of 
time. 

This  points  to  the  need  for  an  independent  body,  as  others  have 
said,  that  has  no  financial  interest  to  rank  fighters  based  on  won/ 
loss  records,  not  byzantine  politics.  We  support  this  very  important 
reform. 

To  the  extent  that  conflicts  of  interest  may  exist  in  the  boxing 
business,  HBO  has  neither  the  power  nor  the  authority  to  police 
such  conflicts.  I  believe,  however,  that  the  best  way  to  deal  with 
these  conflicts  is  mandatory  disclosure  of  information  to  the 
boxers,  State,  and  Federal  regulatory  bodies.  If  you  can  ensure  that 
everyone  has  full  knowledge  of  the  facts,  then  I  believe  you  have 
gone  a  long  way  towards  limiting  the  harmful  effects  of  conflict  of 
interest. 

I  am  often  asked  if  I  consider  boxing  a  sport.  After  all,  one  plays 
football,  one  plays  tennis,  one  plays  basketball.  You  don't  say  that 
you  play  boxing.  It  is  a  very  serious  sport  and  a.  very  serious  busi- 
ness. 

When  asked  about  boxing  and  whether  it  is  a  sport,  ageless  but 
not  speechless  George  Foreman  had  this  to  say:  "Boxing  is  sort  of 
like  jazz.  The  better  one  performs  it,  the  less  amount  of  people  can 
really  appreciate  it."  But  boxing  is  a  sport  with  thousands  of  prac- 
titioners and  millions  of  fans  through  the  United  States  and  tens  of 
millions  around  the  world. 

In  fact,  America's  first  identifiable  sports  hero  was  the  heavy- 
weight boxing  giant  John  L.  Sullivan,  who  did  business  as  "The 
Boston  Strongboy"  throughout  the  1880s  and  1890s.  Sullivan  en- 
tered boxing  lore  and  was  held  in  the  highest  esteem  when  he 
vowed  and  delivered  on  a  promise,  "I  can  lick  any  man  in  the 
house." 

Senators  if  your  hearings  and  legislation  can  lick  just  some  of 
boxing's  problems  and  shortcomings,  real  fight  fans  and  prize  fight- 
ers would  regard  you  in  high  esteem  as  well. 

Thank  you  for  this  chance  to  express  my  views,  and  I  hope  they 
are  of  some  value  to  you. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Abraham,  for  being  here  today. 
Your  help  with  the  staff  and  your  being  here  is  indeed  a  positive 
contribution. 

Earlier  today,  my  good  friend  and  colleague,  Senator  John 
McCain,  quoted  you  as  saying  that  boxing  is  the  red-light  district  of 
sports.  Could  you  explain  that  statement? 

Mr.  Abraham.  Well,  actually  I  am  quoting  Damon  Runyon,  who 
picked  it  up  from,  I  think,  Westbrook  Pegler. 


59 

Boxing  is  a  tough  business.  It  is  a  tough  business  for  the  prize 
fighters,  it  is  a  tough  business  for  the  people  who  are  involved  in  it. 
The  rules,  such  as  they  are,  are  very  amorphous  and  you  really 
have  to  keep  your  wits  about  you,  as  the  fighters  do  in  the  ring. 
And  yet  it  is  very,  very  popular.  It  has  great  fans,  great  athletes, 
great  writing.  It  is  here  to  stay. 

Senator  Roth.  Let  me  quote  how  Sports  Illustrated  referred  to 
you.  They  called  you  "the  heaviest  hitter  in  the  world  of  profession- 
al boxing,"  noting  that  you,  and  I  quote,  "control  to  a  large  degree 
that  colorful  business." 

Now  I  suspect  as  a  modest  individual  you  will  not  necessarily 
agree  with  that  statement,  but  it  raises  two  questions  in  my  mind 
and  I  think  it  is  certainly  true  that  you  are  a  heavy  hitter  and 
your  industry  is  of  critical  importance  to  the  sport  of  boxing. 

One  question  I  have  is  why  can't  the  sport  itself  self-regulate? 
Would  it  be  possible  for  somebody  like  yourself  and  your  industry, 
together  with  others,  to  provide  the  kind  of  leadership  that  would 
bring  about  the  same  kind  of  self-regulation  you  have  in  other 
sports — baseball,  football?  I  think  everybody  would  prefer,  if  practi- 
cal, to  not  get  government  involved,  the  Federal  Government,  but 
there  seems  to  be  no  alternative. 

Could  you  comment  on  that? 

Mr.  Abraham.  Senator,  I  weight  168  pounds.  That  would  make 
me  a  super  middleweight,  not  a  heavyweight,  and  in  fact,  I  think 
that  article  was  more  colorful  than  factual. 

But  more  to  your  point,  I  have  been  sitting  here  since  the  very 
beginning  of  your  hearings  this  morning  and  listening  and  taking 
notes  and  I  literally  put  something  at  the  very  end  of  my  remarks. 

Boxing  is  very  complex.  Just  this  morning,  since  about  nine- 
thirty,  you  have  talked  about  uniform  refereeing,  uniform  scoring, 
boxing  equipment,  the  responsibility  of  ringside  physicians,  the  or- 
ganizations' ratings  and  rankings,  conflicts  of  interest,  medical 
records,  and  the  lack  of  medical  research. 

There  may  not  be  another  way.  Maybe  that  response  surprises 
you,  but  there  may  not  be  another  way.  There  are  four  organiza- 
tions, two  of  which  are  outside  of  the  United  States.  They  are 
feudal  duchies.  It  is  sort  of  like  Italy  in  the  15th  century.  Each  one 
is  sort  of  an  independent  State,  and  I  dare  say  that  there  is  no  one 
person,  no  one  organization  extant  in  boxing  today  who  could  clean 
up  the  sport  and  reform  the  sport. 

I  regret  that,  because  from  a  television  perspective,  if  fans  like 
boxing,  believe  in  boxing,  hold  boxing  in  high  regard,  that  is  good 
for  our  business. 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  in  the  alternative,  let  me  ask  you  to  do  this, 
because  I  think  that  you  and  others  in  similar  positions  do  carry 
great  weight.  I  think  there  is  a  broad  consensus,  not  entirely 
throughout  the  industry,  however,  that  some  step  along  the  lines  of 
what  I  or  my  good  friend  Bill  Richardson  am  proposing  is  needed 
at  the  Federal  level. 

It  would  be  most  helpful  to  us,  and  let  me  thank  you  for  your 
endorsement  of  our  legislation  in  your  opening  remarks,  but  it 
would  be  most  helpful  if  we  could  get  active  support  from  boxing 
itself  in  supporting  this  legislation  that  we  want  to  enact. 


60 

What  concerns  me  is  that  there  have  been  hearings  for  30  years 
on  this  matter  and  very  little  has  happened,  and  I  don't  want  that 
to  happen  again.  I  want  to  see  some  constructive  action,  as  one 
who  believes  boxing  should  continue. 

I  would  hope  that  you  and  others  like  you,  but  particularly  you 
because  of  your  most  critically  important  role,  could  garner  sup- 
port, active  support  for  legislation  along  the  lines  we  discussed. 

Mr.  Abraham.  I  would  say,  Senator,  that  in  some  corners  of  the 
sport  we  could.  Regrettably,  in  most  we  couldn't.  HBO/Time 
Warner  Sports  is  an  influential,  not  the  most  powerful,  but  we  are 
indeed  a  very  influential  member  of  the  boxing  community.  But  for 
many  reasons,  much  of  which  you  talked  about  today  and  I  intend 
to  elaborate  at  least  on  1  or  2,  there  are  so  many  self-interests  in 
boxing  that  it  is  very  hard  to  find  any  community  of  interest  on 
most  of  these  issues. 

You  have  talked  and  others  have  talked  about  the  boxing  organi- 
zations. There  are  four  organizations.  There  are  17  weight  classes. 
My  arithmetic  tells  me  that  is  potentially  68  world  champions. 
Now  it  happens  that  there  aren't,  there  are  certain  men  who  hold 
two  belts,  but  I  can  tell  you  as  we  sit  here  today  there  is  no  man  in 
boxing  who  can  say,  I  am  the  undisputed  champion  of  my  weight 
class. 

Riddick  Bowe  beat  the  man,  Evander  Holyfield,  who  beat  the 
man,  Buster  Douglas,  who  beat  the  man,  Mike  Tyson,  who  beat  the 
man,  who  goes  all  the  way  back  to  John  L.  Sullivan.  Riddick  Bowe 
is  the  lineal  descendant  of  John  L.  Sullivan  110  years  later  and  one 
organization  doesn't  list  him  as  the  champion.  There  is  something 
wrong  there. 

Well,  what  is  wrong  is  a  self-interest  to  have  multiple  champions, 
multiple  sanction  fees,  multiple  license  fees.  Ultimately,  that  hurts 
the  sport.  That  hurts  the  sport.  Forget  television,  that  just  hurts 
the  sport. 

So  could  we  pull  together  some  community  of  interest?  Yes,  we 
could,  but  regrettably  it  wouldn't  be  universal. 

Senator  Roth.  Whatever  you  can  pull  together  would  be  a  posi- 
tive factor. 

Mr.  Abraham.  I  like  to  think  we  do.  We  do  title  fights  even  after 
men  have  been  stripped  of  their  belts,  because  the  organization 
says,  you  are  no  longer  our  champion,  we  continue  to  proceed  with 
those  prize  fights. 

Senator  Roth.  Let  me  ask  you  this,  Mr.  Abraham.  Does  HBO 
contract  directly  with  individual  boxers? 

Mr.  Abraham.  In  fact,  Senator,  there  is  a  page  in  the  staff  report 
which  was  brought  to  my  attention  this  morning,  and  it  says  that 
Time  Warner  Sports  sometimes  negotiates  and  enters  into  contrac- 
tual arrangements  directly  with  boxers.  I  think  that  is  miscasting 
it. 

We  have  several  contracts  in  which  the  fighter  is  party  to  the 
contract.  We  now  have  a  George  Foreman  contract  in  which 
George  Foreman  is  a  party  to  the  contract.  We  did  not  negotiate 
that  deal  with  George  Foreman,  it  was  negotiated  with  his  promot- 
er and  his  adviser  and  Foreman  was  party  to  it,  but  here  is  the 
key.  George  Foreman  goes  fight  by  fight  with  his  promoter.  His 
promoter  could  not  contract  George  Foreman  to  a  three-fight  con- 


61 

tract  but  George  Foreman  wanted  to  enter  into  that  deal  so  George 
Foreman  is  a  party  to  it. 

There  are  other  fighters,  Senator,  who  do  not  have  a  manager. 
Ray  Leonard  when  he  was  fighting  did  not  have  a  manager,  he  had 
a  legal  adviser,  and  there  were  times  that  Ray  Leonard  would  be 
party  to  the  contract.  We  do  not  deal  directly  with  fighters,  as  this 
statement  would  imply. 

Senator  Roth.  My  time  on  the  first  round  is  up. 

Senator  Cochran. 

OPENING  STATEMENT  OF  SENATOR  COCHRAN 

Senator  Cochran.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  came  over  here  to  learn 
about  the  issue.  As  a  new  member  of  the  committee,  I  am  aware  of 
your  interest  in  the  subject  matter  and  I  want  to  commend  you  for 
your  leadership  in  developing  the  legislation  and  convening  hear- 
ings and  helping  to  lead  the  staff  to  review  this  very  important 
area  of  interest. 

I  tend  to  approach  these  issues  with  some  caution  about  the  need 
for  new  Federal  legislation  in  an  area  that  may  have  been  regulat- 
ed by  some  States  very  well,  and  I  was  wondering  whether  or  not 
Mr.  Abraham  has  an  opinion  about  whether  some  States  have  done 
an  exceptionally  good  job  of  boxing  regulation  to  the  extent  that 
we  might  look  to  those  States  for  leadership  in  developing  a  Feder- 
al format  or  Federal  standards. 

I  think  about  Nevada  and  New  York,  States  where  I  know  I  have 
watched  fights  on  television  broadcast  from  those  States  since  I 
was  a  youngster,  and  identify  them  with  experience  in  this  area. 
There  are  many  other  States.  Although  John  L.  Sullivan  fought 
some  of  his  great  fights  on  the  Mississippi  Gulf  Coast,  they  weren't 
broadcast  on  television  and  I  don't  know  that  we  even  have  a  State 
Boxing  Commission  or  regulation  in  my  State.  I  am  just  not  famil- 
iar with  it. 

What  is  your 

Mr.  Abraham.  Yes,  you  do. 

Senator  Cochran.  What  is  your  view  of  State  regulation  in  this 
area?  Does  Nevada  or  New  York  or  some  other  State  have  a  model 
regulatory  commission  that  we  might  consider  reviewing  for  the 
purpose  of  writing  Federal  regulations? 

Mr.  Abraham.  Senator  Cochran  and  Senator  Roth,  I  think  you 
have  hit  on  something.  There  are  a  number  of  States,  Nevada,  New 
York,  California,  New  Jersey,  that  the  State  athletic  commissions 
are  very  progressive,  I  believe  have  great  integrity.  And  I  think  if 
you  sat  down  with  their  chairmen  and  commissioners  and  sort  of 
put  together  the  outline  of  what  a  regulatory  body  could  look  like, 
the  best  of  all  these  States,  the  best  of  their  rules,  the  standardiza- 
tion of  their  rules. 

I  am  well  aware  of  why  these  hearings  began  because  I  was  at 
home  and  I  watched  the  Toney-Tiberi  fight  as  a  fan  and  as  some- 
body in  the  business.  It  was  an  extraordinarily  close  fight,  but 
there  are  terms  in  boxing  that  are  arcane  to  all  but  a  few  people  in 
this  room,  ring  generalship,  effective  aggression.  But  if  you  go  to 
these  States  and  try  to  get  some  sort  of  standardized  rules,  I  think 


62 

that  is  a  terrific  starting  point,  because  these  men  and  women  care 
about  the  sport  and  they  have  obviously  demonstrated  it. 

I  would  say  those  four  States — I  would  add  California  to  that 
list — I  would  say  those  are  the  five  that  come  to  my  immediate 
mind. 

Senator  Cochran.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Senator  Cochran. 

Mr.  Abraham,  your  statement  suggests  that  while  you  think 
some  additional  regulation  of  boxing  inside  the  ring  may  be  war- 
ranted, you  are  not  so  certain  that  more  uniform  regulation  out- 
side the  ring  is  needed.  But  isn't  that  part  of  the  purpose  of  cur- 
rent regulation,  to  prevent  the  financial  exploitation  of  boxers? 
Isn't  that  why  managers  are  limited  in  most  States  to  one-third  of 
the  boxer's  purse,  and  that  most  States  also  require  purse  money  to 
be  physically  delivered  by  a  boxing  commission  representative  di- 
rectly to  the  boxer? 

We  have  found  that  unscrupulous  managers  and  promoters 
easily  evade  the  current  regulations  to  the  financial  detriment  of 
boxers.  Do  you  disagree  with  that  conclusion? 

Mr.  Abraham.  Senator,  my  father  and  my  wife  taught  me  to  be 
an  idealist.  There  are  certain  rules,  skinny  as  they  may  be,  that 
protect  the  fighter.  New  York  State  has  them  in  terms  of  percent- 
ages that  a  fighter  must  give  to  a  manager,  a  promoter,  a  trainer. 
There  are  certain  States  that  do  protect  that. 

I  would  like  to  see  somebody  go  further.  The  organizations — I 
think  if  there  is  a  way  to  create  a  ranking  body  that  has  no  finan- 
cial interest  in  a  prize  fight,  no  sanctioning  fee.  Why  the  hell 
should  Evander  Holyfield  have  to  spend  $600,000  to  defend  his 
belts?  For  the  life  of  me,  I  don't  understand  that.  I  don't  under- 
stand that.  I  don't  care  if  it  is  $1,  I  don't  understand  why  a  fighter 
has  to  pay  a  sanctioning  fee.  What  do  these  organizations  do? 

So  my  recommendation  would  be,  again  going  further,  to  try  to 
look  at  the  organizations,  protecting  the  fighters  that  way.  Riddick 
Bowe  is  now  heavyweight  champion  but  who  was  there  to  protect 
Riddick  Bowe  when  he  got  pushed  down  to  No.  2,  to  a  fighter  who 
is  0  and  2,  there  was  no  one  there  to  protect  him.  There  is  where 
fighters  at  all  levels,  not  just  the  championship  levels,  at  all  levels 
fighters  need  protection. 

Senator  Roth.  So  you  believe  it  is  important  that  we  take  away 
the  ranking  from  these  sanctioning  bodies  and  put  it  into  some 
kind  of  independent 

Mr.  Abraham.  Not  only  independent,  but  somebody  who  has  ab- 
solutely no  fiduciary  involvement  in  who  wins  or  who  loses  or 
where  the  fight  takes  place,  is  absolutely  pristine  in  ranking  the 
fighter. 

Senator  Roth.  Would  that  be  one  individual  or  some  kind  of  a 
committee? 

Mr.  Abraham.  In  major  league  baseball,  there  is  a  panel  to  elect 
members,  both  living  and  deceased,  into  the  Baseball  Hall  of  Fame, 
and  I  think  this  is  as  close  as  I  can  recommend  to  you.  And  that 
panel  who  elects  ballplayers  into  the  Hall  of  Fame  is  an  amalgama- 
tion of  sports  writers,  officials,  ex-players,  no  current  players  but 
ex-players,  and  it  is  a  representative  sampling  of  the  sport  of  major 


63 

league  baseball.  I  think  some  representative  body  like  that  would 
be  most  effective. 

Senator  Roth.  I  was  intrigued  to  learn  that  boxing  attracts  the 
highest  ratings  of  all  programming  at  HBO,  with  big  fights  out- 
drawing  even  Michael  Jackson  and  Madonna;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Abraham.  That  is  absolutely  true.  The  highest-rated  pro- 
gramming on  Home  Box  Office  on  the  Nielsen  ratings  are  the  big 
prize  fights. 

Senator  Roth.  Let  me  ask  you,  what  are  the  primary  revenue 
sources  for  HBO?  How  many  subscribers  do  you  have? 

Mr.  Abraham.  Home  Box  Office  today  has  approximately  18  mil- 
lion subscribers  in  all  50  States.  As  many  of  you  know,  we  have  no 
advertising  so  our  revenue  stream  comes  from  subscriber  fees, 
monthly  subscriber  fees. 

Senator  Roth.  What  is  the  difference  between  HBO  Sports  and 
TVKO? 

Mr.  Abraham.  HBO  Sports  is  one  of  the  programming  compo- 
nents of  Home  Box  Office.  There  are  five  or  six  other  units.  HBO 
Sports  is  one  of  them,  much  like  the  commercial  networks  would 
have  a  sports  department. 

In  April  of  1991,  HBO  Sports,  Time  Warner  Sports,  launched  a 
boxing  pay-per-view  network  that  we  call  TVKO,  which  is  a  per- 
charge,  not  a  per-month,  but  a  per-charge  fee  to  see  our  fights. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Abraham,  I  greatly  appreciate  your  being 
here  today  and  your  most  helpful  testimony.  I  would  like  to  call  on 
you  further  as  we  try  to  proceed  with  the  enactment  of  legislation. 
I  think  someone  in  your  very  key  role  can  be  most  helpful. 

Mr.  Abraham.  I  would  be  pleased  to. 

Senator  Roth.  I  certainly  appreciate  your  being  here  today. 
Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Abraham.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Roth.  Our  final  witness  today  will  be  Michael  Aresco. 
Mr.  Aresco  is  Program  Manager  for  ESPN. 

Mr.  Aresco,  if  you  would  stay  standing.  As  you  know,  you  have  to 
be  sworn  in.  Would  you  raise  your  right  hand? 

Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  will  give  before  the  Subcommit- 
tee will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so 
help  you  God? 

Mr.  Aresco.  I  do. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you.  Please  be  seated. 

I  want  to  thank  you,  Mr.  Aresco,  for  you  and  your  staff  coopera- 
tion during  this  investigation. 

Please  proceed  with  your  statement.  As  I  said  earlier,  if  you  can 
summarize  it  in  part,  the  full  statement  will  be  included  as  if  read. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MICHAEL  L.  ARESCO,1  PROGRAM  MANAGER, 

ESPN,  INC. 

Mr.  Aresco.  Thank  you,  Senator. 

Mr.  Chairman,  members  of  the  Committee,  my  name  is  Michael 
Aresco.  I  am  a  program  manager  in  the  ESPN  Programming  De- 
partment. ESPN  is  the  Nation's  largest  cable  network,  reaching  ap- 


1  The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Aresco  appears  on  page  155. 


64 

proximately  61.8  million  homes.  It  is  an  all-sports  network  which 
has  programmed  over  60  different  kinds  of  sports.  As  a  program 
manager,  I  acquire  and  manage  programming  in  various  catego- 
ries, including  college  football,  rodeo,  other  equestrian  program- 
ming. I  have  handled  NCAA  championships,  yachting,  fitness  and 
aerobic  shows. 

One  of  my  current  programming  responsibilities  is  ESPN's 
boxing.  I  have  been  with  the  network  8  years  and  was  Assistant 
General  Counsel  before  joining  the  Programming  Department. 

In  April,  ESPN  celebrates  the  13th  anniversary  of  our  popular 
and  successful  Top  Rank  boxing  series,  which  features  up-and- 
coming  fighters  as  well  as  established  fighters,  although  we  do  not 
do  the  million-dollar  fights.  That  is  not  our  area.  The  series  has 
featured,  however,  important  title  fights,  world  title  fights,  and  en- 
tertaining and  significant  non-title  fights,  and  over  the  years  we 
have  televised  occasional  boxing  cards  from  other  promoters,  which 
we  refer  to  as  wildcard  fights. 

Boxing  is  a  major  and  popular  sport  among  our  viewers  world- 
wide. Our  philosophy,  as  manifested  in  our  series,  has  been  and  re- 
mains to  provide  our  viewers  with  the  best-quality  fights  that  they 
would  most  want  to  watch.  We  are  proud  of  the  integrity,  stability, 
longevity,  and  ratings  and  production  success  of  the  series. 

Let  me  give  you  briefly  some  background  on  how  we  program 
boxing  at  ESPN.  We  televise  approximately  40  boxing  cards  per 
year.  Virtually  all  are  live  although  this  year  we  may  do  several 
that  would  be  taped.  As  best  I  can  determine,  we  do  about  20  per- 
cent of  the  televised  boxing  in  the  United  States.     , 

Top  Rank  is  the  company  that  provides  us  with  most  of  our 
boxing.  Top  Rank  arranges  the  match-ups,  employs  matchmakers 
who  try  to  create  exciting,  competitive  quality  bouts  which  make 
for  good  television.  Top  Rank  handles  all  the  arrangements  neces- 
sary to  stage  the  events  for  television.  We,  in  turn,  select  the  an- 
nouncers and  commentators  and  produce  the  telecasts.  Included 
are  various  features  that  we  also  telecast,  such  as  our  "Ringside 
Report"  which  features  current  news. 

Our  boxing  mix  consists  of  fights  in  most  weight  classes.  For  ex- 
ample, we  recently  televised  the  IBF  cruiserweight  title  fight  be- 
tween Alfred  Cole  and  Uriah  Grant.  Riddick  Bowe,  Mike  Tyson, 
and  Tommy  Hearns  have  all  fought  on  Top  Rank  boxing  as  they 
were  ascending  in  their  careers. 

Additionally,  ESPN  televises  historical  boxing  matches  we  call 
"Superbouts."  These  are  1-hour  shows  featuring  footage  of  famous 
fights  such  as  Ali-Norton,  Leonard-Duran,  or  compilation  shows 
such  as  George  Foreman's  knockouts. 

A  gauge  of  boxing's  popularity  is  our  high  ratings  for  the  Top 
Rank  series.  In  1992,  we  averaged  a  2.2  rating  for  40  cards.  A 
rating  point  represents  1  percent  of  ESPN's  viewer  universe  of  ap- 
proximately 61.8  million  households,  as  I  alluded  to.  This  translates 
to  approximately  618,000  homes.  A  2.2  rating  would  therefore  rep- 
resent approximately  1,360,000  households  who  regularly  watch 
ESPN's  Top  Rank  boxing. 

We  take  measures  to  safeguard  the  integrity  of  our  boxing.  Top 
Rank  does  not  use  fighters  whose  records  cannot  be  verified  by  the 
well-respected  Ralph  Citro  Record  Service  and  there  are  absolutely 


65 

no  exceptions.  All  feature  match  fighters  must  have  winning 
records.  We  require  Top  Rank  to  sign  a  quarterly  certificate  certi- 
fying that  all  information  to  be  provided  to  ESPN  during  the  af- 
fected calendar  quarter  with  respect  to  all  fighters  appearing  on 
ESPN  is  true  and  correct. 

In  summary,  boxing  is  an  important  part  of  ESPN's  program- 
ming mix  and  it  has  consistently  been  one  of  our  highest-rated 
series  over  the  years. 

Thank  you. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Aresco. 

I  believe  you  have  been  sitting  here  this  morning  during  these 
hearings  and  probably  heard  the  testimony  of  the  problems  with 
State  regulation  of  boxing,  the  ease  with  which  the  rules  can  be 
avoided  and  the  problems  that  are  inherent  in  getting  any  mini- 
mum health  and  safety  rules. 

Would  you  be  supportive  of  some  approach  such  as  my  legisla- 
tion to  create  a  public  corporation  to  regulate  boxing? 

Mr.  Aresco.  Senator,  we  would  welcome  anything  and  any  ap- 
proach that  would  improve  boxing,  as  we  would  in  any  sport.  Uni- 
formity would  appear  to  have  many  advantages.  Minimum  stand- 
ards from  State  to  State  clearly  would  appear  to  have  many  advan- 
tages. 

I  want  to  be  cautious,  because  as  a  programming  and  a  television 
network,  we  don't  necessarily  have  an  opinion  on  how  best  to  go 
about  this  or  how  it  should  be  handled.  It  isn't  in  the  scope  of  our 
authority.  Obviously  we  are  an  interested  party.  I  think  we  prob- 
ably ultimately  lack  the  expertise.  The  headgear  issue  was  a  per- 
fect example  of  where  we  might  think  that  heavier  gloves  or  head- 
gear would  be  a  better  thing  and  apparently  it  is  not.  Seth  Abra- 
ham referred  to  the  complexity  of  these  issues  and  therefore  we 
are  cautious. 

We  ourselves  do  not  feel  we  are  the  problem  because  we  feel  we 
take  stringent  measures  and  we  require  our  packager,  Top  Rank, 
to  take  stringent  measures  to  ensure  the  safety  and  integrity  of  our 
boxing  and  we  rely  on  their  expertise. 

We  certainly  want  to  be  helpful,  but  I  don't  know  that  it  is 
within  our  bailiwick  to  have  a  particular  opinion  about  this,  other 
than,  again,  uniformity  and  minimum  standards  would  appear,  in 
my  judgment,  to  be  useful. 

Senator  Roth.  A  number  of  witnesses  have  testified  that  if  some- 
thing isn't  done  to  "clean  up  the  sport,"  that  boxing  is  going  to  lose 
the  confidence  of  the  public.  I  assume  that  would  be  a  concern  to 
you  as  one  who  provides  boxing  to  much  of  the  public. 

Mr.  Aresco.  It  is,  Senator,  and  we  feel  that  the  marketplace 
would  demand  that  our  boxing  have  integrity  and  we  do  everything 
we  can  to  ensure  it. 

I  think  the  question  becomes,  which  of  the  measures  are  most  ap- 
propriate, and  I  am  just  not  sure  we  are  in  a  position  necessarily  to 
know  that  or  to  be  able  to  comment. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  agree  that  there  should  be  some  uniformi- 
ty throughout  the  country  as  to  basic  health  and  safety  rules? 

Mr.  Aresco.  In  my  judgment,  there  would  definitely  seem  to  be  a 
need  for  that.  There  was  an  allusion  made  and  references  made  to 
certain   commissions   being   stronger   than   others — Nevada,    New 


66 

York,  California,  New  Jersey.  Those  are  the  places  where  we  do 
the  bulk  of  our  boxing  and  it  is  my  understanding  that  those,  espe- 
cially Nevada,  are  strong  commissions  with  strong  requirements, 
and  obviously  we  would  support  and  applaud  that  and  any  effort  to 
make  those  stronger. 

Senator  Roth.  Notwithstanding  that  testimony,  we  also  have  evi- 
dence, for  example,  that  a  boxer  in  one  of  those  States  that  is  sus- 
pended from  further  boxing  easily  avoids  those  rules,  so  that  ac- 
cepting at  face  value  that  those  States  have  strong  commissions,  al- 
though we  had  some  evidence  last  summer  that  some  of  them, 
their  enforcement  of  the  rules  leaves  something  to  be  desired,  there 
is  still  the  ability  to  avoid  restrictions,  because  of  the  differences 
between  states. 

For  example,  we  are  told  that  sanctioning  bodies  can  often  over- 
rule a  State  commission  because  they  will  tell  the  State  commis- 
sion, well,  if  you  don't  agree  with  us  as  to  who  is  going  to  be  the 
referee  or  the  judges  or  whatever,  we  will  just  take  the  fight  some- 
where else.  Do  you  see  that  as  a  problem? 

Mr.  Aresco.  That  would  be,  and  in  fact,  in  title  fights  where 
there  is  a  sanctioning  body  involved,  it  is  my  understanding  that 
the  sanctioning  body  can  overrule  State  commissions,  pick  referees, 
etc. 

Top  Rank,  our  packager  which  organizes  our  boxing,  disagrees 
with  that  policy  and  would  rather  see  the  State  commissions  have 
that  control.  And  again,  Top  Rank  has  been  at  this  a  long  time  and 
has  improved  over  the  years  and  has  worked  hard  on  its  methods.  I 
believe  that  that  is  something  that  the  committee  would  want  to 
know,  that  Top  Rank  does  not  support  that. 

Senator  Roth.  What  are  the  primary  revenue  sources  for  ESPN? 

Mr.  Aresco.  We  generate  revenues  from  affiliate  monthly  fees 
and  also  from  the  sale  of  advertising  time,  primarily. 

Senator  Roth.  It  is  my  understanding  there  is  a  difference  in  the 
type  of  boxing  matches  which  would  appear  on  your  respective  net- 
works, with  HBO  and  TVKO  doing  what  is  called  megafights  and 
ESPN  doing  marquee  fights. 

What  is  the  difference?  Can  you  give  us  some  examples  of  fights 
the  networks  broadcast? 

Mr.  Aresco.  Yes.  Over  the  years,  Senator,  we  have  featured  for 
the  most  part  up-and-coming  young  fighters  who  are  not  as  well 
known  to  the  general  public,  whereas  HBO  and  TVKO  in  turn 
would  concentrate  on  major  title  fights  involving  purses  of  millions 
of  dollars. 

Our  boxing  is,  I  think,  several  levels  above  club  boxing.  We  do 
feature  title  fights  from  time  to  time.  We  have  recently  had  the 
Pendleton-Spann  IBF  lightweight  title  fight,  and  the  Alfred  Cole- 
Uriah  Grant  fight  was  an  IBF  cruiserweight  title  fight. 

I  would  say  of  our  40  cards  a  year,  somewhere  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  12  to  24  would  be  title  fights  sanctioned  by  either  the  three 
major  sanctioning  bodies,  or  the  NABF  or  the  USBA.  For  the  most 
part,  our  boxers  are  established  fighters,  but  we  also  feature  under- 
cards  where  we  have  younger  fighters  coming  up.  For  instance,  re- 
cently on  ESPN  you've  seen  Oscar  de  la  Hoya,  the  Olympic  cham- 
pion, fight,  and  you  would  see  other  fighters  like  that  fight.  At 
some  point,  Oscar  de  la  Hoya  might  fight  for  a  title  and  perhaps  do 


67 

a  pay-per-view  fight,  and  ESPN  would  probably  not  be  involved  in 
that. 

Senator  Roth.  Does  ESPN  contract  directly  with  the  individual 
boxers? 

Mr.  Aresco.  No,  we  do  not,  Senator.  We  contract  with  Top  Rank 
and  Top  Rank  takes  care  of  details  and  deals  with  the  individual 
fighters. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  select  the  boxers?  Do  you  have  any  veto 
power  over  specific  boxers? 

Mr.  Aresco.  Senator,  we  do  not  select  the  boxers  per  se.  We  have 
input,  we  can  make  recommendations,  we  do  have  veto  power,  but 
for  the  most  part,  we  rely  on  Top  Rank's  expertise  and  they  set  up 
the  matches. 

Senator  Roth.  Why  do  you  think  free  TV  networks,  for  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  currently  are  out  of  the  professional  boxing 
business? 

Mr.  Aresco.  I  think  there  are  several  reasons.  One  is  that  I  be- 
lieve the  demographics  of  the  boxing  viewing  audience  tend  to  be 
older.  In  other  words,  the  viewers,  as  opposed  to  some  sports,  tend 
to  be  older  and  advertisers  have  less  incentive  to  target  those  view- 
ers. That  is  just  the  way  the  television  business  works,  and  I  think 
that  because  the  networks  don't  have  the  affiliate  fee  revenue 
stream,  they  have  to  rely  heavily  on  advertising,  and  I  think  some 
of  that  has  dried  up. 

I  believe  also  that  the  image  of  boxing  may  be  a  factor.  I  don't 
know,  but  certainly  the  advertising  sales  situation  and  the  older 
demographics,  I  think,  would  be  key  reasons  the  networks  aren't 
doing  as  many  fights. 

Senator  Roth.  What  impact,  if  any,  will  the  virtual  absence  of 
free  TV  have  on  boxing  in  general? 

Mr.  Aresco.  I  think  boxers  certainly  receive  less  exposure  and 
therefore  you  have  fewer  household  names,  and  I  think  that  prob- 
ably hurts  us. 

You  would  think  in  some  ways  a  lack  of  broadcast  network 
boxing  would  mean  that  some  fighters  who  used  to  appear  on  the 
networks  would  appear  on  ESPN.  To  some  extent  that  is  true,  but 
in  another  sense  it  isn't  true  because  certain  boxers,  once  they 
reach  a  certain  position,  want  large  fees  and  purses.  Therefore,  if 
the  networks  weren't  going  to  pay  that  kind  of  fee,  they  would 
simply  not  appear  on  the  networks  or  ESPN  and  they  might  do 
HBO  or  pay-per-view  fights.  But  clearly,  exposure  for  fighters 
would  be  the  impact. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Aresco,  as  I  indicated  earlier,  we  will  keep  the 
record  open  temporarily  for  further  questions,  for  the  next  3  days. 

But  I  appreciate  your  being  here  and  look  forward  to  continuing 
this  dialogue. 

Mr.  Aresco.  Thank  you,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  list  of  exhibits  that  we 
would  like  to  have  included  in  the  record  at  this  time.1 


1  The  exhibits  from  the  Minority  Staff  appear  on  pages  163  thru  266. 


68 

Senator  Roth.  Without  objection. 

There  are  plans  for  additional  hearings,  at  least  one  more,  but 
the  date  is  not  yet  firmed  up  so  that  will  be  determined  at  a  later 
date. 

The  Subcommittee  is  in  recess. 

[Whereupon,  at  12:19  p.m.,  the  Subcommittee  adjourned,  subject 
to  the  call  of  the  Chair.] 


CORRUPTION  IN  PROFESSIONAL  BOXING 

Part  II 


THURSDAY,  APRIL  1,  1993 

U.S.  Senate, 
Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations, 
of  the  Committee  on  Governmental  Affairs, 

Washington,  DC. 

The  Subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  notice,  at  2:05  p.m.,  in  room 
SD-342,  Dirksen  Senate  Office  Building,  Hon.  Sam  Nunn,  Chair- 
man of  the  Subcommittee,  presiding. 

Present:  Senators  Nunn,  Dorgan,  Roth,  Cohen,  and  McCain. 

Staff  Present:  Eleanore  J.  Hill,  Chief  Counsel;  John  F.  Sopko, 
Deputy  Chief  Counsel;  Mary  D.  Robertson,  Chief  Clerk;  David  B. 
Buckley,  Chief  Investigator;  Harold  B.  Lippman,  Investigator;  Cyn- 
thia Comstock,  Executive  Assistant  to  Chief  Counsel;  Daniel  F. 
Rinzel,  Minority  Chief  Counsel;  Stephen  H.  Levin,  Mary  E. 
Michels,  and  W.  Leighton  Lord  III,  Minority  Counsel;  Scott  Or- 
chard, Minority  Investigator;  Sallie  B.  Cribbs,  Minority  Executive 
Assistant  to  the  Chief  Counsel;  Carla  J.  Martin,  Minority  Assistant 
Chief  Clerk;  Betty  Ann  Soiefer  (Senator  Glenn);  Jennifer  Urff  and 
Gene  Harrington  (Senator  Dorgan);  Tony  Sanchez  (Senator  Bryan); 
Dale  Cabaniss  (Senator  Stevens);  Matt  Frost  and  Paul  Brubaker 
(Senator  Cohen);  Robbie  Wilbur  and  Grant  Fox  (Senator  Cochran); 
Mark  Buse,  Brad  Belt  and  Paul  Feeney  (Senator  McCain). 

OPENING  STATEMENT  OF  SENATOR  NUNN 

Chairman  Nunn.  The  Committee  will  come  to  order. 

This  afternoon,  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations 
returns  again  to  its  examination  of  corruption  in  professional 
boxing. 

The  Subcommittee's  investigation,  which  was  initiated  early  last 
year  by  ranking  minority  member  Senator  Roth,  resulted  last 
August  in  the  first  of  what  has  become  a  continuing  series  of  hear- 
ings. The  August  hearings  focused  on  the  role  of  State  regulatory 
agencies  and  sanctioning  bodies  in  protecting  the  interests  of  pro- 
fessional boxers. 

Early  last  month,  the  Subcommittee  received  additional  testimo- 
ny from  a  panel  of  medical  experts  who  outlined  their  concerns  re- 
garding a  variety  of  health  and  safety  issues  affecting  professional 
boxers  and  offered  a  number  of  recommendations  to  address  them. 
At  that  time,  we  also  heard  from  cable  television  network  execu- 
tives who  described  their  industry's  involvement  in  professional 
boxing,  and  from  Congressman  Bill  Richardson,  a  long-time  propo- 

(69) 


70 

nent  of  the  need  to  establish  Federal  regulation  and  oversight  of 
professional  boxing  in  our  country. 

In  today's  hearings,  we  turn  to  yet  another  of  the  significant 
questions  facing  professional  boxing — the  role  or  alleged  role  of  or- 
ganized crime  therein.  We  will  have  a  witness  first,  and  then  we 
will  hear  from  the  minority  staff,  who  will  present  a  summary  of 
their  findings  in  this  regard.  One-time  Gambino  organized  crime 
family  underboss,  Salvatore  "Sammy  the  Bull"  Gravano  will  be  our 
first  witness,  and  then  we'll  follow  with  the  minority  staff. 

As  many  of  you  know,  Mr.  Gravano  was  the  Government's  key 
witness  in  the  recent  trial  and  conviction  of  one-time  Gambino 
crime  family  boss  John  Gotti.  Reflecting  his  long  experience  as  a 
Gambino  crime  family  member,  Mr.  Gravano  will  offer  testimony 
based  on  his  personal  knowledge  of  the  relationship  between  crimi- 
nal elements  and  professional  boxing. 

The  remaining  witnesses  to  be  heard  are  boxers  and  those  associ- 
ated directly  or  indirectly  with  them. 

As  before,  I  want  to  commend  Senator  Roth  and  his  staff  for 
their  hard,  diligent  and  effective  work.  Allegations  of  organized 
criminal  involvement  in  boxing  have  long  been  a  concern  of  those 
in  Congress  worried  about  the  sport's  safety  and  credibility.  Indeed, 
this  very  question  was  foremost  among  those  raised  more  than  30 
years  ago  by  Senator  Estes  Kefauver,  whose  investigation  of  profes- 
sional boxing  revealed  widespread  and  pervasive  involvement  on 
the  part  of  organized  crime  individuals  and  interests  at  that  time. 

With  this  historical  record  in  mind,  I  look  forward  to  today's  tes- 
timony. To  the  extent  that  it  confirms  or  disproves  present  orga- 
nized criminal  activity  in  professional  boxing,  it  will  assist  us  in 
more  accurately  assessing  the  sport's  integrity,  viability  and  long- 
term  prospects. 

Senator  Roth,  we  appreciate  your  leadership  here  and  the  leader- 
ship of  your  staff,  and  I'll  turn  to  you  for  your  statement,  and  then 
we  will  have  our  first  witness. 

OPENING  STATEMENT  OF  SENATOR  ROTH 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

As  we  resume  our  inquiry  into  corruption  in  professional  boxing, 
I  want  to  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  your  cooperation  during 
the  course  of  this  investigation  and  to  thank  your  staff  for  their 
support. 

More  than  30  years  ago,  after  the  last  Senate  hearings  on  profes- 
sional boxing,  Senator  Kefauver  stated,  and  I  quote:  "Professional 
boxing  has  had  too  many  connections  with  the  underworld." 

What  is  the  current  state  of  underworld  connections  with 
boxing?  In  our  hearings  last  August,  we  heard  testimony,  support- 
ed by  FBI  surveillance  tapes,  that  four  organized  crime  families 
were  involved  in  arranging  a  single  meeting  in  1983  between  un- 
dercover agents,  organized  crime  figures,  and  one  of  boxing's  lead- 
ing promoters.  The  purpose  of  that  meeting  was  to  discuss  doing  a 
boxing  promotion  to  launder  drug  money. 

And  what  about  today?  I  would  like  to  be  able  to  say  that  profes- 
sional boxing  has  cleaned  up  its  act,  and  organized  crime  is  no 
longer  among  the  sport's  many  problems.   But  as  we  will  hear 


71 

today,  this  is  not  what  the  evidence  shows.  Instead,  the  evidence 
shows  that  the  tentacles  of  organized  crime  still  extend  into  the 
boxing  ring,  squeezing  the  mob's  cut  out  of  boxers.  Unfortunately, 
State  boxing  regulators  have  been,  and  continue  to  be,  unable  to 
cut  off  these  tentacles. 

Of  course,  the  stakes  are  higher  since  there  is  potentially  much 
more  money  to  be  made  in  boxing  today.  Former  middleweight 
champ  Jake  LaMotta  earned  a  total  of  $1  million  in  his  13-year 
boxing  career  that  ended  in  1954.  Today,  it  is  not  unusual  for  a  top- 
ranked  boxer  to  make  that  much  in  a  single  fight. 

The  more  money  to  be  made,  the  more  the  mob  is  interested  in 
boxing.  A  former  captain  in  the  Colombo  crime  family  told  us  that 
during  our  August  hearings.  And  as  we  will  hear  today  from  an- 
other organized  crime  member,  the  mob  has  adapted  to  the  chang- 
ing boxing  market.  Today,  the  mob  is  less  likely  to  fix  fights  and 
more  likely  to  seek  control  of  individual  boxers,  managers  and  pro- 
moters, and  thus  collect  its  share  from  their  big  paydays.  The 
boxer  may  even  be  an  unwitting  dupe  in  the  whole  scheme.  Howev- 
er, as  with  the  other  problems  we  have  found  in  boxing,  it  is  the 
boxer  and  the  public  who  lose,  whether  the  boxer  knows  it  or  not. 

The  irony  is  that  while  boxing  and  the  mob's  methods  have 
changed,  the  regulatory  system  designed  to  protect  the  boxers  re- 
mains basically  unchanged  from  when  Senator  Kefauver  first 
found  it  to  be  inadequate.  Senator  Kefauver  concluded — and  again, 
I  quote — "Major  boxing  contests,  because  of  their  interstate  charac- 
ter, are  presently  beyond  the  power  of  any  State  to  regulate  fully 
and  effectively."  As  a  result,  while  it  is  called  "the  sweet  science," 
boxing  often  turns  sour  for  those  the  system  is  supposed  to  protect. 

Every  day,  in  gyms  throughout  this  country,  in  big  cities  and 
small  towns,  young  men  spend  countless  hours  training  in  the  hope 
of  achieving  a  dream.  Unfortunately,  we  have  found  that  they 
often  become  victims  of  a  system  riddled  with  abuses,  a  system 
that  cannot  protect  their  health  and  safety,  a  system  that  cannot 
protect  them  from  financial  exploitation.  The  dream  often  becomes 
a  nightmare. 

I  believe  this  investigation  has  shown  that  it  is  time  for  all  of  us 
to  wake  up  to  the  fact  that  the  professional  boxing  industry  is  un- 
willing and  perhaps  unable  to  police  itself.  We  owe  it  to  these 
young  men  to  establish  a  system  that  works  as  hard  outside  the 
ring  to  protect  them  as  they  do  inside  the  ring.  I  look  forward  to 
working  with  my  colleagues  to  achieve  that  goal. 

Once  again,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  thank  you  for  your  leader- 
ship and  support. 

Prepared  Statement  of  Senator  Roth 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  As  we  resume  our  inquiry  into  corruption  in  profes- 
sional boxing,  I  want  to  thank  you  for  your  cooperation  during  the  course  of  this 
investigation,  and  I  want  to  thank  your  staff  for  their  support. 

More  than  30  years  ago,  after  the  last  Senate  hearings  on  professional  boxing, 
Senator  Kefauver  stated,  and  I  quote,  "Professional  boxing  has  had  too  many  con- 
nections with  the  underworld." 

What  is  the  current  state  of  underworld  connections  with  boxing?  In  our  hearings 
last  August,  we  heard  testimony,  supported  by  FBI  surveillance  tapes,  that  four  or- 
ganized crime  families  were  involved  in  arranging  a  single  meeting  in  1983  between 
undercover  agents,  organized  crime  figures,  and  one  of  boxing's  leading  promoters. 


72 

The  purpose  of  this  meeting  was  to  discuss  doing  a  boxing  promotion  to  launder 
drug  money. 

And  what  about  today?  I  would  like  to  be  able  to  say  that  professional  boxing  has 
cleaned  up  its  act  and  organized  crime  is  no  longer  among  the  sport's  many  prob- 
lems. But,  as  we  will  hear  today,  that  is  not  what  the  evidence  shows.  Instead,  the 
evidence  shows  that  the  tentacles  of  organized  crime  still  extend  into  the  boxing 
ring,  squeezing  the  mob's  cut  out  of  boxers.  Unfortunately,  State  boxing  regulators 
have  been  and  continue  to  be  unable  to  cut  off  these"  tentacles. 

Of  course,  the  stakes  are  higher  since  there  is  potentially  much  more  money  to  be 
made  in  boxing  today.  Former  middleweight  champ,  Jake  LaMotta,  earned  a  total  of 
$1  million  in  his  13-year  boxing  career  that  ended  in  1954.  Today,  it  is  not  unusual 
for  a  top-ranked  boxer  to  make  that  much  in  one  fight. 

The  more  money  to  be  made,  the  more  the  mob  is  interested  in  boxing — a  former 
captain  in  the  Colombo  crime  family  told  us  that  during  our  August  hearings.  As  we 
will  hear  today  from  another  organized  crime  member,  the  mob  has  adapted  to  the 
changing  boxing  market.  Today,  the  mob  is  less  likely  to  fix  fights  and  more  likely 
to  seek  control  of  individual  boxers,  managers  and  promoters,  and  thus  collect  its 
share  from  their  big  paydays.  The  boxer  may  even  be  an  unwitting  dupe  in  the 
whole  scheme.  However,  as  with  the  other  problems  we  have  found  in  boxing,  it  is 
the  boxer  and  the  public  who  lose — whether  the  boxer  knows  it  or  not. 

The  irony  is  that,  while  boxing  and  the  mob's  methods  have  changed,  the  regula- 
tory system  designed  to  protect  the  boxers  remains  basically  unchanged  from  when 
Senator  Kefauver  first  found  it  to  be  inadequate.  Senator  Kefauver  concluded,  and 
again,  I  quote,  "Major  boxing  contests,  because  of  their  interstate  character,  are 
presently  beyond  the  power  of  any  State  to  regulate  fully  and  effectively."  As  a 
result,  while  it  is  called  the  "Sweet  Science,"  boxing  often  turns  sour  for  those  the 
system  is  supposed  to  protect. 

Every  day  in  gyms  throughout  this  country,  in  big  cities  and  in  small  towns, 
young  men  spend  countless  hours  training  in  the  hope  of  achieving  a  dream.  Unfor- 
tunately, we  have  found  that  they  often  become  victims  of  a  system  riddled  with 
abuses — a  system  that  cannot  protect  their  health  and  safety,  a  system  that  cannot 
protect  them  from  financial  exploitation.  The  dream  often  becomes  a  nightmare.  I 
believe  this  investigation  has  shown  that  it  is  time  for  all  of  us  to  wake  up  to  the 
fact  that  the  professional  boxing  industry  is  unwilling  and  perhaps  unable  to  police 
itself.  We  owe  it  to  these  young  men  to  establish  a  system  that  works  as  hard  out- 
side the  ring  to  protect  them  as  they  do  inside  the  ring.  I  look  forward  to  working 
with  my  colleagues  to  achieve  that  goal. 

Once  again,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  thank  you  for  your  leadership  and  support. 

Chairman  "Nunn.  Thank  you,  Senator  Roth. 

Senator  Cohen  or  Senator  McCain,  do  either  of  you  have  any 
opening  comments? 

Senator  Cohen.  I  do  not,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I'll  include  my 
statement  in  the  record. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Without  objection,  it  will  be  part  of  the  record. 

Prepared  Statement  of  Senator  McCain 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  want  to  thank  you  and  Senator  Roth  for  your  con- 
tinuing efforts  to  examine  the  serious  problems  that  exist  in  professional  boxing  in 
America.  Each  hearing  is  unfolding  as  a  new  chapter  in  a  story  full  of  greed,  corrup- 
tion, and  vast  indifference  to  the  well-being  of  professional  boxers. 

Today's  hearing  on  the  involvement  of  organized  crime  in  professional  boxing  will 
present  some  truly  startling  and  disturbing  testimony.  Without  question,  organized 
crime  continues  to  play  a  substantial  role  in  boxing  in  America,  and  their  corrupt- 
ing influence  is  a  compelling  reason  why  reform  of  the  boxing  industry  at  the  Fed- 
eral level  is  so  necessary. 

Organized  crime  has  muscled  and  threatened  its  way  into  professional  boxing 
since  the  first  gate  proceeds  ever  changed  hands.  I  find  it  perplexing  that  in  the  face 
of  so  much  personal  testimony  and  case  studies  on  the  mob's  connections  to  various 
fighters,  managers,  and  promoters,  there  hasn't  been  greater  support  for  stronger 
regulations  to  protect  boxers  and  eliminate  the  criminal  element  from  the  sport. 

We  have  a  chance  to  achieve  this  worthy  goal  this  year.  For  anyone  who  may 
wonder  why  a  Federal  entity  should  be  created  to  oversee  the  boxing  industry,  they 
need  only  to  listen  to  the  testimony  that  will  shortly  be  presented. 


73 

For  example: 

— The  underboss  of  the  Gambino  crime  family  will  state  that  in  addition  to  con- 
trolling the  construction  industry  in  New  York,  the  family  was  involved  in  profes- 
sional boxing.  Mr.  Gravano  discussed  a  $10,000  bribe  with  a  referee  to  move  a  fight- 
er up  in  the  rankings  of  the  WBC.  This  convenient  step  would  have  assured  a  big 
payday  in  the  future  after  fixing  the  outcome  of  a  fight. 

— Mr.  Gravano  will  also  testify  that  a  former  European  and  WBO  champ  was  af- 
filiated with  an  organized  crime  family  in  Italy,  and  that  a  recent  WBC  title-holder 
here  in  the  United  States  is  managed  by  a  Gambino  family  associate. 

— Investigators  of  this  Subcommittee  will  declare  that  30  years  after  the  ground- 
breaking Kefauver  hearings,  boxing  is  still  overly  corrupt  and  that  ".  .  .  the  States 
are  unable  to  adequately  regulate  the  business  and  the  sport  of  boxing."  It  is  inar- 
guable,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  industry  has  failed  to  properly  regulate  itself,  and 
that  a  patchwork  of  State  commissions  has  proved  insufficient  to  the  task. 

We  are  unfortunately  witnessing  the  continuing  degradation  of  what  in  essence  is 
a  sport  that  is  a  supreme  test  of  a  man's  strength  and  courage.  I  hope  that  all  mem- 
bers of  the  House  and  Senate,  in  addition  to  all  the  people  across  America  who  love 
boxing,  will  heed  Mr.  Gravano's  closing  statement  that  ".  .  .  organized  crime  is 
more  and  more  interested"  in  getting  heavily  involved  in  the  boxing  industry. 

This  corrosive  undermining  of  what  should  be  a  proud  and  exhilarating  sport  has 
gone  on  far  too  long,  Mr.  Chairman.  Professional  boxing  should  be  respected  for 
challenging  a  man's  athletic  power,  skills,  and  endurance — not  a  seedy  arena  for  the 
manipulators  who  seek  glory  and  fortune  by  exploiting  the  toil  and  sweat  of  others. 

I  look  forward  to  our  witnesses,  and  I  again  want  to  convey  my  deep  personal  in- 
terest and  considerable  concern  about  boxing  in  America.  I  will  do  everything  I  can 
as  a  Senator  to  see  that  we  protect  the  health  and  welfare  of  fighters  in  the  ring, 
and  that  we  bring  its  shadowy  financial  and  advisory  arrangement  into  the  light  of 
responsible  public  oversight. 


Prepared  Statement  of  Senator  Dorgan 

Mr.  Chairman,  before  I  begin  I  want  to  thank  you  for  all  the  time,  energy,  and 
expertise  that  you  have  dedicated  to  this  important  topic. 

At  this  very  moment,  thousands  of  young  boxers  in  this  country  are  vying  to  par- 
ticipate in  a  sport  that  is  unregulated,  unsafe,  and  too  often  corrupt.  As  a  member 
of  the  U.S.  House  of  Representatives,  I  worked  for  several  years  to  pass  legislation 
that  would  make  the  sport  of  boxing  more  safe,  more  honest  and,  I  believe,  more 
exciting.  I  am  pleased  now  to  work  with  Senator  Roth,  Congressman  Richardson, 
and  others  in  drafting  a  new  regulatory  proposal  that  we  hope  to  pass  and  have 
signed  into  law  this  session. 

By  this  legislation,  which  would  create  a  Federal  Boxing  Commission,  we  hope  to 
attack  the  very  root  of  the  problems  in  the  boxing  industry.  The  domination  of  a 
very  few  individuals  over  the  entire  sport  has  prevented  boxing  from  developing 
safety  and  ethical  standards  to  protect  the  thousands  of  young  boxers  struggling  to 
make  a  name  for  themselves. 

While  we  hold  this  hearing,  a  boxer  named  Sergei  Artemiev  remains  in  critical 
condition  in  a  hospital  after  collapsing  in  the  10th  round  of  a  March  21st  USBA 
lightweight  title  fight  in  Atlantic  City.  Earlier  this  week,  Sergei  underwent  surgery 
for  a  blood  clot  on  the  brain.  Thankfully,  he  now  reacts  to  the  voice  of  his  wife  and, 
mercifully,  he  is  still  alive.  But  it  is  still  not  known  whether  he  suffered  any  brain 
damage  or  how  much  rehabilitation  he  will  need. 

At  the  same  time,  a  New  York  grand  jury  is  hearing  evidence  regarding  alleged 
criminal  wrongdoing  by  boxing  promoter  Don  King.  These  two  events  tell  me  that 
something  is  drastically  wrong  with  the  sport  of  boxing,  and  we — all  of  us  who  enjoy 
the  sport — have  to  stop  looking  the  other  way. 

This  year,  we  have  yet  another  opportunity  to  force  the  boxing  industry  to  clean 
house.  Do  I  think  that  if  Federal  boxing  legislation  was  in  place  before  Sergei's  fight 
that  he  wouldn't  have  received  so  many  blows  to  the  head  and  collapsed  during  his 
bout?  No,  I  have  neither  the  medical  expertise  nor  the  hindsight  to  say  such  a 
thing.  However,  I  do  know  that  it  is  just  plain  common  sense  not  to  let  two  boxers 
get  into  a  ring  and  start  fighting  without  any  kind  of  consistent  rules  or  regulation. 
I  also  know  that  boxing  leaders  are  not  capable  of  cleaning  up  the  industry  by 
themselves. 

In  testimony  about  corruption  in  boxing  last  year,  an  FBI  agent  told  this  Subcom- 
mittee of  his  experiences  as  an  undercover  agent  helping  to  arrange  a  fight  at  Madi- 
son Square  Garden.  Neither  boxer  scheduled  to  fight  was  licensed  in  New  York. 


74 

Both  fighters  were  managed  by  Don  King's  stepson,  Carl  King,  and  the  fight  was 
promoted  by  Don  King  himself.  So  the  terms  of  the  fight,  including  compensation 
for  the  fighters,  were  determined  by  two  self-interested  parties  who  had  absolute 
control  over  the  fight. 

This  represents  to  me  the  crux  of  the  problem  in  this  industry.  The  industry  is 
dominated  by  a  few  interests  and  a  few  personalities  who  are  not  concerned  about 
the  safety  or  well-being  of  boxers.  And  it's  not  the  superstars  who  bear  the  brunt  of 
this  problem — it's  the  thousands  of  young  boxers  struggling  to  build  a  name  and  a 
record  who  are  abused  and  exploited. 

So  I  think  the  Chairman  for  his  interest  in  the  commitment  to  this  issue,  and  I 
look  forward  to  continuing  to  work  with  Senator  Roth  and  others  to  find  a  solution 
to  these  problems. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Before  we  bring  in  the  first  witness,  let  me  get 
a  couple  of  things  clear.  The  Capitol  Police  will  ensure  that,  be- 
cause of  very  high  security  concern  during  this  particular  witness' 
testimony,  no  spectators  will  be  permitted  to  stand  anywhere  in 
the  hearing  room.  Spectators  will  be  confined  to  the  available  seats 
in  the  audience.  No  spectators  will  be  permitted  to  enter  or  leave 
the  hearing  room  during  the  witness'  testimony,  and  that  includes 
cameras  and  equipment.  Also,  no  still  photographers  will  be  per- 
mitted in  the  well  in  front  of  the  witness  table  during  the  testimo- 
ny of  the  witness. 

We  appreciate  everyone's  understanding  and  cooperation  in  that 
regard.  These  are  security  measures  that  are  essential,  based  on 
the  best  information  we  have. 

When  everything  has  been  secured,  and  I'll  leave  that  up  to  our 
law  enforcement  people  here,  then  they  can  bring  the  witness  in. 

[Pause.] 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Gravano,  if  you  would  remain  standing, 
please. 

Our  first  witness  is  Salvatore  Gravano.  Mr.  Gravano  is  currently 
in  Federal  custody  and  cooperating  with  the  Government  while 
awaiting  sentencing.  Mr.  Gravano  has  testified  as  a  Government 
witness  in  several  major  trials  and  will  be  testifying  in  additional 
upcoming  cases. 

Given  the  sensitive  nature  of  Mr.  Gravano's  position  as  a  cooper- 
ating witness,  we  have  agreed  to  limit  his  testimony  to  matters  re- 
lating to  professional  boxing.  We  appreciate  the  cooperation  of  all 
Subcommittee  members  in  abiding  by  this  understanding. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Mr.  Gravano,  we  swear  in  all  the  witnesses 
before  this  Subcommittee,  so  if  you  will  hold  up  your  right  hand, 
I'll  give  you  the  oath.  Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  give  before 
this  Subcommittee  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  do. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Thank  you.  You  may  be  seated. 

Mr.  Gravano,  do  you  have  an  attorney  with  you  today? 

Mr.  Gleeson.  Mr.  Chairman,  my  name  is  John  Gleeson,  and  I  am 
an  Assistant  United  States  Attorney  in  Brooklyn,  New  York,  chief 
of  the  Organized  Crime  Section,  and  I  am  supervising  the  criminal 
investigations  in  which  Mr.  Gravano  is  participating.  I  have 
worked  with  the  staff  of  the  Subcommittee  in  facilitating  his  ap- 
pearance here  today.  He  is  represented  by  counsel;  obviously,  it  is 
not  me. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Thank  you.  We  appreciate  your  cooperation. 

Senator  Roth. 


75 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Gravano,  would  you  please  proceed  with  your 
testimony? 

TESTIMONY  OF  SALVATORE  "SAMMY  THE  BULL"  GRAVANO,1 
FORMER  UNDERBOSS,  GAMBINO  ORGANIZED  CRIME  FAMILY; 
ACCOMPANIED  BY  JOHN  GLEESON,  ASSISTANT  UNITED  STATES 
ATTORNEY,  BROOKLYN,  NEW  YORK 

Mr.  Gravano.  Good  afternoon,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Mr.  Gravano,  if  you'll  pull  that  microphone 
right  up  and  talk  directly  into  it.  Take  your  time,  and  just  talk 
right  into  the  mike. 

Mr.  Gravano.  Good  afternoon,  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of 
the  Subcommittee.  My  name  is  Salvatore  Gravano.  Early  in  my 
life,  I  was  given  the  nickname,  "Sammy  the  Bull." 

I  have  been  in  jail  since  December  of  1990,  when  I  was  arrested 
with  John  Gotti.  I  was  his  underboss  and  second-in-command  of  the 
Gambino  family. 

I  have  been  involved  with  organized  crime  since  1968,  when  I 
became  associated  with  a  guy  named  Shorty  Spero  of  the  Colombo 
family.  I  committed  many  types  of  crimes  when  I  was  with  Shorty, 
including  my  first  murder.  In  1972,  I  was  officially  released  from 
the  Colombo  family  to  the  Gambino  family.  I  became  a  "made" 
member  of  the  Gambino  family  in  1976.  At  that  time,  Paul  Castel- 
lano  was  the  boss  of  the  Gambino  family. 

In  December  of  1985,  John  Gotti  and  I,  along  with  some  others, 
murdered  Paul  Castellano.  We  then  took  over  the  family.  John 
Gotti  became  the  boss.  A  couple  of  weeks  later,  I  became  a  captain. 
In  1987,  I  became  acting  consigliere  of  our  family.  I  later  became 
the  official  consigliere.  Then,  in  January  of  1990,  I  accepted  the  po- 
sition of  official  underboss,  which  I  held  until  I  began  to  cooperate 
with  the  Government  in  1991. 

I  decided  to  cooperate  before  we — meaning  me,  John  Gotti,  and 
our  acting  consigliere,  Frank  Locascio — went  to  trial.  I  testified  at 
that  trial  and  some  others.  I  will  be  testifying  at  more  trials  in  the 
near  future. 

As  part  of  my  deal  with  the  Government,  I  pleaded  guilty  to  a 
charge  that  has  a  20-year  maximum  sentence  rather  than  the  life 
sentence  that  I  was  facing  if  convicted  at  trial.  As  part  of  my  coop- 
eration, I  told  the  Government  about  my  life  of  crime,  including 
the  fact  that  I  participated  in  19  murders. 

As  a  member  of  our  family's  administration,  I  helped  John  Gotti 
run  the  family.  My  primary  responsibility  was  controlling  the  con- 
struction industry  in  New  York.  I  did  this  by  working  with  union 
officials  and  companies  that  were  owned  or  controlled  by  our 
family,  and  by  dealing  with  other  families  which  also  controlled 
certain  unions  and  companies. 

I  have  been  asked  to  testify  here  today  about  the  mob's  involve- 
ment in  professional  boxing.  I  don't  know  much  about  what  other 
families  have  been  doing  in  boxing,  but  I  do  know  about  our 
family. 


1  The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Gravano  appears  on  page  156. 


76 

The  Gambino  family  had  basically  gotten  out  of  boxing  sometime 
around  or  before  1960.  We  were  involved  in  other  things  that  made 
more  money.  But  I  have  always  had  an  interest  in  boxing.  I  boxed 
a  little  when  I  was  in  the  Army,  and  I  picked  it  up  again  a  few 
years  before  I  was  arrested.  I  would  go  to  Gleason's  Gym  in  Brook- 
lyn every  week  and  work  out.  Sometimes,  I  would  go  a  few  rounds 
with  other  people  who  trained  there.  I  often  attended  fights  in  New 
York  and  New  Jersey,  including  the  Mike  Tyson-Larry  Holmes 
fight  in  1988  in  Atlantic  City,  which  I  attended  with  John  Gotti. 

I  got  to  know  a  heavyweight  named  Renaldo  Snipes  and  his  man- 
ager, who  I  knew  as  Sal.  I  tried  to  set  up  a  fight  between  Snipes 
and  Francesco  Damiani,  who  was  the  undefeated  European  and 
WBO  heavyweight  champ.  Damiani  was  with  an  organized  crime 
family  in  Italy.  Since  our  family  had  close  ties  with  the  Italian 
family,  I  was  able  to  set  up  a  meeting  with  Damiani's  people.  They 
came  to  New  York,  and  we  discussed  the  possibility  of  a  fight  with 
Snipes.  At  that  time,  Damiani  was  already  scheduled  to  fight  Ray 
Mercer. 

One  of  the  things  I  did  to  try  to  arrange  a  Damiani-Snipes  fight 
was  to  reach  out  to  set  up  a  meeting  with  the  guy  who  was  in 
charge  of  boxing  for  Donald  Trump.  I  believe  his  name  was  Mark 
Etess.  Snipes,  his  manager  Sal,  and  I  met  with  this  Mark  in  Atlan- 
tic City.  He  told  us  that  a  fight  between  Damiani  and  Snipes  would 
sell.  Mark  thought  it  would  be  even  bigger  if  Snipes  had  a  high 
ranking  with  one  of  boxing's  sanctioning  bodies. 

Joe  Watts,  who  is  an  associate  in  our  family,  told  me  that  he  had 
someone  in  Las  Vegas  who  could  help  us  get  a  ranking  for  Snipes. 
Watts  arranged  a  meeting  for  me  with  Joey  Curtis,  a  boxing  refer- 
ee in  Las  Vegas.  Joey  Curtis  had  once  visited  our  club,  the  Raven- 
ite  Social  Club,  in  New  York  City. 

So  I  went  to  Las  Vegas  with  two  of  my  friends  and  our  wives. 
After  we  had  dinner  with  Curtis,  I  took  him  aside  and  asked  him  if 
he  could  get  Snipes  moved  up  in  the  rankings.  Curtis  said  he  could 
move  Snipes  up  in  the  rankings  of  the  World  Boxing  Council, 
which  is  based  in  Mexico.  Curtis  said  that  this  would  cost  $10,000, 
but  because  it  was  a  favor  for  John  Gotti,  he  might  be  able  to  get  it 
done  for  about  $5,000. 

My  idea  all  along  was  to  use  the  Damiani-Snipes  fight  as  a  set-up 
fight  to  get  Damiani  a  big  payday  against  Mike  Tyson.  My  plan 
was  for  Snipes  to  have  a  high  ranking  and  then  make  it  look  good, 
but  lose  to  Damiani.  I  never  discussed  this  with  Snipes,  because  Da- 
miani lost  to  Mercer,  which  put  Damiani  out  of  the  picture  for  a 
major  fight.  I  am  sure  that  we  would  have  had  no  problem  in  con- 
vincing Snipes  to  lose. 

Another  boxer  our  family  has  an  interest  in  is  Buddy  McGirt, 
who  recently  lost  the  WBC  welterweight  title.  His  manager  is  Al 
Certo,  who  is  a  Gambino  family  associate.  Al  Certo  is  with  "Jo Jo" 
Corozzo,  who  is  a  "made"  member  of  our  family. 

I  know  Al  Certo  is  with  our  family  because  JoJo  put  it  on  record 
with  his  captain,  Peter  Gotti.  Also,  a  beef  came  up  between  our 
family  and  the  Bufalino  family  about  who  McGirt  was  with.  Eddie 
Sciandra,  the  consigliere  of  the  Bufalino  family,  complained  to 
John  Gotti  that  the  Bufalinos  had  a  piece  of  McGirt.  Gotti  told  me 
to  arrange  a  meeting  with  Sciandra  and  JoJo  to  resolve  the  beef.  I 


77 

actually  had  several  meetings  with  JoJo  and  Sciandra  about  this. 
JoJo  said  that  he  had  paid  Sciandra  some  money  to  walk  away 
from  McGirt,  but  now  Sciandra  wanted  back  in  because  McCirt 
had  done  well  and  was  getting  bigger  purses.  After  hearing  both  of 
them,  I  recommended  to  John  Gotti  that  JoJo  was  right,  and  that 
McGirt  should  stay  with  JoJo  and  our  family. 

Eddie  Sciandra  was  not  satisfied  with  my  decision  and  kept 
coming  back  for  more  meetings.  I  got  tired  of  meeting  with  Scian- 
dra about  this,  but  out  of  respect  for  his  position  and  age,  we  had 
Frank  Locascio,  who  was  part  of  our  administration,  continue  to 
talk  to  him.  But  our  position  never  changed.  Certo  and  McGirt 
stayed  with  our  family. 

I  should  point  out  that  the  person  who  was  with  us  was  really  Al 
Certo.  His  relationship  with  JoJo  Corozzo  is  how  we  had  a  piece  of 
McGirt.  McGirt  is  a  fighter,  and  although  Certo  brought  him  by 
the  club  once  to  introduce  him  to  some  people,  it  really  wouldn't  be 
fair  for  me  to  say  that  he  is  an  associate  of  organized  crime.  But 
Certo  was  with  us,  and  that  gave  us  our  interest  in  McGirt. 

Our  family  was  not  the  only  family  involved  in  boxing.  Although 
I  do  not  know  the  details,  I  know  that  several  other  families  are 
involved  in  boxing  in  some  way.  But  you  should  know  that  our  in- 
volvement in  boxing  has  changed  from  the  way  it  used  to  be.  A  lot 
of  people  think  that  organized  crime  makes  money  by  fixing  fights 
and  betting  on  the  winner.  That  really  doesn't  happen  anymore. 
The  purses  have  gotten  so  big  that  it  doesn't  make  sense  to  fix  a 
fight  in  order  to  collect  a  bet.  While  we  would  consider  fixing  a 
fight  in  order  to  set  up  for  a  big  payday  fight — like  I  had  in  mind 
for  Damiani — the  money  is  in  the  purses,  not  in  betting.  Besides, 
boxing  is  a  risky  business  for  bookmakers — you  couldn't  bet  big 
money  on  a  fight  even  if  you  wanted  to. 

So  the  interest  today  is  in  getting  a  piece  of  a  successful  boxer. 
Until  a  boxer  reaches  a  certain  level,  there  is  not  much  money  to 
be  made  because  the  purses  are  small.  But  once  a  boxer  becomes 
successful,  the  family  that  has  him  can  profit  from  that  success. 
Now,  because  the  size  of  the  purses  have  gotten  so  big  over  the  past 
20  years,  organized  crime  is  more  and  more  interested  in  getting 
back  into  it. 

I  will  be  happy  to  answer  any  questions  that  you  might  have 
about  organized  crime  and  boxing. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Gravano.  I'll  ask  you  just  a 
few  questions  and  then  turn  to  Senator  Roth  and  my  colleagues. 

You  state  here  that,  quote,  "you  couldn't  bet  big  money  on  a 
fight  even  if  you  wanted  to."  What  do  you  call  "big  money"? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  would  imagine  anywhere  from  $40,000  to  $50,000 
and  up. 

Chairman  Nunn.  You  can't  place  bets  any  larger  than  $30,000  or 
$40,000  on  a  fight  today,  then? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Not  with  bookmakers  in  the  street,  no;  they  prob- 
ably wouldn't  take  that  kind  of  action. 

Chairman  Nunn.  And  has  that  changed  over  the  years?  Could 
you  bet  big  money  in  the  past  and  can't  now? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes.  Years  ago,  the  purses  were  rather  small,  and 
they  would  filter  out  the  betting,  and  they  were  more  likely  to  get 
the  betting  years  ago  than  they  are  today. 


78 

Chairman  Nunn.  Why  is  it  that  bookmakers  won't  take  big  bets 
on  fights  today?  Do  they  worry  about  the  fights  being  fixed,  or 
what  are  they  worrying  about? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  would  imagine  they  worry  about  fights  being 
one-sided.  I  don't  know  as  far  as  being  fixed,  but  some  of  the  fights 
are  total  mismatches,  and  they  really  wouldn't  want  to  get  in- 
volved in  the  action  of  it. 

Chairman  Nunn.  And  there  is  no  way  to  establish  odds,  is  that 
right,  when  you've  got  a  mismatch? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  they  do,  but  they  won't  take  big  money. 
They  will  take  small  money,  $1,000,  $2,000,  maybe  $5,000,  maybe 
even  $10,000  if  you  find  a  fairly  large  bookmaking  operation.  But  I 
really  don't  believe  that  they  would  go  overboard  with  bets  on 

Chairman  Nunn.  When  did  that  change — what  time  period — and 
what  caused  it  to  change?  There  have  always  been  one-sided  fights, 
have  there  not? 

Mr.  Gravano.  But  I  would  imagine  that  when  organized  crime 
walked  away  from  the  boxing  industry,  I  believe  our  betting  slowed 
down.  I  believe  the  whole  thing  stopped  in  that  area. 

Chairman  Nunn.  When  did  organized  crime  walk  away  from  the 
boxing  industry? 

Mr.  Gravano.  In  the  time  when  Rocky  Marciano  and  people  like 
that  were  involved,  our  people — meaning  mob  people — were  in- 
volved, and  we  had  closer  ties  to  boxing,  and  I  would  imagine  there 
was  a  lot  more  betting  and  a  lot  more  situations. 

Bookmaking  and  bookmakers  I  think  became  a  little  more  so- 
phisticated. There  are  even  some  tracks,  horse  betting  races,  and 
some  tracks  that  they  would  stay  away  from  and  they  wouldn't 
take  action  on.  There  were  also  some  games  that  they  wouldn't 
take  action  on.  They  might  take  action  on  if  you  wanted  to  call  a 
knockout,  which  round,  or  something  like  that,  which  would  make 
the  bet  very,  very  hard  and  complicated. 

Chairman  Nunn.  And  what  were  the  ventures  that  were  so  prof- 
itable that  organized  crime  basically  decided  to  walk  away  from 
boxing  after  the  Marciano  era?  What  things  shifted  in  organized 
crime  then?  Was  that  when  organized  crime  started  getting  into 
narcotics?  What  were  the  things  that  were  so  lucrative  that  orga- 
nized crime  lost  interest  in  boxing? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  believe  at  that  time,  organized  crime  became 
more  sophisticated.  We  got  into  unions,  construction,  shipping,  gar- 
ment, garbage,  and  they  became  a  lot  more  lucrative  than  the 
boxing  industry.  Purses  were  very,  very  small. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Would  that  have  been  in  the  1950  time  frame, 
1950's,  1960's? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Fifties,  sixties,  yes.  That's  why  I  said  in  the  sixties 
and  before. 

Chairman  Nunn.  When  did  organized  crime  get  back  into 
boxing? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  over  a  period  of  time  recently,  we  have  had 
an  interest.  Again,  talking  about  my  own  family,  going  down  to 
Gleason's  Gym,  I  met  some  fighters  and  tried  to  put  something  to- 
gether. I  had  conversation  with  John  Gotti  and  myself,  and  John 
had  urged  me  to  see  if  we  could  reach  out  and  put  together  some 


79 

possible  gyms  or  promoters  or  fights  and  see  if  we  could  get  back 
involved  in  the  boxing  industry. 

In  that  period,  I  found  out  that  we  would  be  able  to  reach  certain 
people  who  are  rather  successful  in  the  boxing  industry,  and  I  felt 
that  given  enough  time,  we  would  be  able  to  go  back  into  it. 

Chairman  Nunn.  And  during  what  time  frame  was  that  when 
you  had  these  discussions  with  John  Gotti? 

Mr.  Gravano.  This  was  a  while,  maybe  a  year,  maybe  a  little  bit 
more,  before  I  was  arrested  and  stopped — maybe  even  a  little  bit 
before  that. 

Chairman  Nunn.  So  it  has  been  in  the  last  5  years,  then? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Chairman  Nunn.  What  kind  of  payoff  did  you  expect  and  antici- 
pate from  getting  back  involved?  You  were  going  to  get  a  certain 
percentage  of  the  purses;  is  that  how  you  were  going  to  get  paid? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  there's  a  lot  of  different  benefits  from  it.  At 
one  point,  I  myself  negotiated  to  buy  Gleason's  Gym  in  Brooklyn, 
because  it  had  a  name  and  a  reputation.  We  would  probably  start 
off  with  getting  a  gym;  we  would  have  some  trainers,  like  an  Al 
Certo  bring  McGirt  or  other  people,  to  train  there.  If  the  purses 
became  very  big  and  lucrative,  like  when  you  get  into  the  bracket 
of  half  a  million  and  better,  we  would  be  able  to  chew  up  some  of 
the  money  within  the  gym  through  training  expenses,  not  only  just 
a  direct  kickback,  but  through  training  expenses,  by  putting  people 
to  work  at  that  particular  point  in  his  corner,  for  promotional — for 
many,  many  reasons.  And  then,  we  also  felt  that  some  of  the  fight- 
ers would  have  been  good,  aside  from  just  the  money,  when  some  of 
our  people  were  in  trouble  and  had  trials,  that  we  would  be  able  to 
bring  some  of  them  down  at  the  trial  to  lend  support  to  the  people 
who  were  on  trial  so  that  some  of  the  juries  would  be  impressed  by 
people  who  were  there  and  maybe  sway  some  of  the  juries. 

There  were  a  lot  of  different  reasons  why  we  thought  it  would  be 
good — contacts,  connections  with  Trump,  Steve  Wynn,  or  anybody 
in  that  capacity.  Our  eyes  wouldn't  stop  strictly  at  boxing  once  we 
got  into  the  circle. 

Chairman  Nunn.  So  you  wanted  to  use  this  for  a  broader  and 
more  pervasive  influence,  then? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  we  wouldn't  stop  strictly  at  boxing.  If  I  was 
able  to  start  it,  we  would  probably  put  a  captain  in  our  family  in 
charge  of  that  boxing  industry,  and  once  we  had  a  foothold  in  it, 
yes,  we  would  have  branched  off  in  as  many  areas  as  we  could 
have. 

Chairman  Nunn.  I  understand  that  both  Buddy  McGirt  and 
Snipes  attended  parts  of  John  Gotti's  trial.  Do  you  know  whether 
they  were  asked  to  do  so,  and  if  so,  who  would  have  asked  them? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  again,  in  McGirt's  case,  it  would  have  been 
Al  Certo;  it  would  have  been  John  Gotti,  to  reach  JoJo  Corozzo, 
who  would  have  asked  Al  Certo  to  bring  McGirt  down  to  the  trial, 
that  it  would  look  good. 

As  far  as  Renaldo  Snipes,  he  was  close  to  me;  I  don't  really  know 
who  asked  him  at  that  particular  point. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Senator  Roth. 


80 

Senator  Roth.  In  answer  to  a  question  of  the  Chairman,  you 
stated  that  there  were  certain  people  in  boxing  who  you  thought 
you  could  reach,  and  that's  one  of  the  reasons  why  you  went  back 
into  boxing.  Who  were  those  people  that  you  thought  you  could 
reach? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  in  some  of  our  conversations,  when  we  tried 
to  set  up  the  fight  with  Renaldo  Snipes  and  Damiani,  to  reach 
Donald  Trump,  we  reached  an  entertainer  whose  name  is  Jimmy 
Rozelli,  and  Jimmy  Rozelli  has  a  brother-in-law  who  is  a  heavy- 
weight gambler  and  gambles  in  Atlantic  City,  and  we  used  that  re- 
source to  get  to  Donald  Trump.  We  know  that  Lou  Duva  was  close 
to  people  in  the  Genovese  family — I  really  don't  know  if  he  is  with 
these  people,  but  we  do  know  that  he  has  relationships  with  some 
of  those  people,  and  we  would  be  able  to  reach  him.  Marvin  Hagler 
was  very,  very  close  with  the  Petrocelli  brothers — we  believed  that 
one  of  them  might  even  be  a  "made"  member  of  one  of  the  New 
England  families — but  they  were  his  trainers,  and  we  would  be 
able  to  reach  them. 

At  one  point,  we  reached  out  for  Don  King,  who  gave  us  a  mes- 
sage back  that  he  had  problems  with  the  Government  and  prob- 
lems with  taxes,  and  he  didn't  think  it  was  the  right  time  to  meet. 
And  we  reached  Raymond  Patriarca,  from  a  New  England  family, 
who  would  reach  a  Cleveland  family.  They  had  access  to  Don  King, 
it  seemed  like,  some  control  over  Don  King,  and  they  would  ex- 
plain to  him  at  the  next  request  to  meet  him,  for  John  Gotti  and 
myself,  that  it  would  be  in  his  best  interest  that  he  would  meet 
with  us. 

We  knew  that  Nicki  Scarfo  had  some  interest  in  some  fighters, 
and  other  families  around  the  country.  There  is  a  guy  named 
Andrew  Russo,  who  is  a  captain  in  the  Colombo  family,  who  has 
some  sort  of  tie  to  Vito  Antuofermo. 

So  knowing  this  base  knowledge,  we  felt  that  if  we  went  back  in, 
some  of  these  places,  there  are  areas  that  we  could  have  gotten 
into.  When  I  met  with  Joey  Curtis  in  Las  Vegas,  he  told  me  that  he 
knew  Steve  Wynn  personally,  and  he  asked  me  if  the  Renaldo 
Snipes-Damiani  fight  would  come  off;  maybe  we  could  even  talk 
with  Steve  Wynn. 

So  I  did  realize  that  we  were  able  to  reach  different  areas  and 
different  people. 

Senator  Roth.  You  have  used  the  terms,  "with,"  "reach," 
"made."  Can  you  explain  exactly  what  you  mean  by  those  terms? 
When  you  testify  about  being  "with"  a  particular  organized  crime 
family,  what  does  that  mean,  generally  and  specifically?  Let  me 
ask  you  that  first. 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  when  you  are  "with"  an  organized  crime 
family  or  a  "made"  member  in  a  family,  the  "made"  member  goes 
to  his  captain  and  puts  you  on  record  that  you  are  "with"  him  and 
our  family.  His  benefits — whatever  connections,  like  I  have  just 
mentioned,  we  have,  he  can  have.  If  any  other  family  within  the 
country,  or  out  of  the  country  for  that  matter,  would  ever  try  and 
move  in  on  him,  muscle  in  on  him,  it  couldn't  happen.  He  was  al- 
ready on  record  as  being  "with"  us.  And  he  would  be  under  our 
protection,  our  umbrella,  so  to  speak. 

Senator  Roth.  But  he  wouldn't  be  "made"? 


81 

Mr.  Gravano.  No.  A  "made"  member  is  another  stage  when  a 
man,  after  a  period  of  years,  is  with  somebody  and  is  brought  into 
a  meeting  and  is  given  the  oath  and  becomes  a  "made"  member. 

Senator  Roth.  He  is  a  full  member,  in  other  words. 

Mr.  Gravano.  He  is  a  blood  member. 

Senator  Roth.  A  blood  member. 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  And  what  do  you  mean  by  the  word,  "reach"? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  if  we  don't  know  Donald  Trump  himself,  we 
have  ways  to  reach  him.  It's  just  a  term  I'm  using.  In  other  words, 
we  would  use  Jimmy  Roselli  or  Jimmy  Roselli's  brother-in-law,  or 
Bobby  Sasso,  who  controls  282  union  in  New  York.  Donald  Trump 
obviously  does  a  lot  of  construction,  and  if  Bobby  Sasso,  the  presi- 
dent of  282,  the  Teamsters,  who  was  with  our  family,  would  reach 
Donald  Trump  and  tell  him  that  we  were  interested  in  a  meeting 
with  him — when  I  say  "we,"  I  don't  mean  me  or  John  Gotti — I 
don't  know  if  Trump  would  meet  us — but  it  would  open  the  door 
for  a  meeting  with  Snipes'  manager  or  Damiani's  manager  or 
whomever  we  put  in  front  of  this  thing  to  make  it  look  legitimate. 
After  a  while,  myself  and  John  Gotti  and  people  like  us  would 
probably  take  a  back  seat  to  somebody  who  is  a  little  bit  cleaner. 

Senator  Roth.  Now,  you  said  you  know  that  McGirt  is  with  the 
Gambino  family  because  Corozzo  put  it  on  the  record  with  Peter 
Gotti.  What  does  it  mean  to  put  something  "on  record"? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  when  a  man  is  a  "made"  member,  he  goes 
to  his  captain,  which  is  his  supervisor  right  above  him,  he  goes  to 
him  and  puts  it  on  record  with  him  on  what  he  is  doing,  what  busi- 
nesses he  has,  who  he  has  with  him.  This  goes  on  record  with  his 
captain.  His  captain  will  bring  it  up  to  the  administration.  So  ulti- 
mately, the  boss  has  a  good  idea  what  the  family  has  in  many  dif- 
ferent industries,  what  contacts  who  has  within  the  family.  So  that 
if  I  wanted  to  get  into  boxing  or  if  we  wanted  to  get  into  boxing,  we 
would  know  immediately  that  we  can  call  for  Pete  Gotti  to  send  for 
JoJo;  we  know  we  would  be  able  to  get  Al  Certo  and  Buddy  McGirt 
through  that  avenue. 

If  a  different  captain — let's  assume;  I'm  just  using  this  as  an  ex- 
ample— was  close  with  Lou  Duva,  we  would  reach  that  captain  to 
reach  Lou  Duva.  But  ultimately,  the  boss  and  the  administration 
would  know  who  has  what;  it's  just  a  matter  of  putting  it — that's 
what  we  mean  by  putting  it  on  record. 

Senator  Roth.  You  mentioned  Peter  Gotti.  Who  is  he? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Peter  Gotti  is  John  Gotti's  brother,  but  more  im- 
portantly, he  is  a  captain  within  our  family. 

Senator  Roth.  Now,  is  it  possible  that  Buddy  McGirt  did  not 
know  that  part  of  his  earnings  were  going  to  organized  crime? 

Mr.  Gravano.  It  is  very  possible,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  Very  possible. 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  You  testified  that  several  meetings  were  held  to 
settle  a  dispute  between  the  Gambino  and  Bufalino  families  con- 
cerning who  owned  parts  of  boxer  Buddy  McGirt's  contract.  I'd  like 
you  to  watch  an  FBI  surveillance  videotape  from  November  15, 
1989  and  identify,  if  you  can,  the  three  individuals  shown  on  this 
tape.  You'll  have  to  look  at  this  screen  here. 


82 

[Videotape  shown.1] 

Mr.  Gravano.  Do  you  want  me  to  answer,  Senator,  who's  who? 

Senator  Roth.  Yes,  if  you  would,  please. 

Mr.  Gravano.  The  one  in  the  middle,  I  believe,  could  be  Eddie 
Sciandra.  The  one  on  the  right  is  me,  and  the  one  on  the  left  is 
JoJo  Corozzo. 

Senator  Roth.  Now,  these  are  the  individuals  who  were  involved 
in  the  dispute  concerning  who  owned  part  of  McGirt's  contract;  is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  recognize  the  location  shown  by  this  video- 
tape? 

Mr.  Gravano.  That's  Mulberry  Street  in  Manhattan.  It  is  the 
Ravenite  Club,  which  is  the  headquarters  for  the  Gambino  family, 
one  of  the  headquarters  for  the  Gambino  family. 

Senator  Roth.  Why  were  you  out  walking,  rather  than  inside  of 
the  club,  discussing  the  matter? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Because  we  believed  that  the  FBI  had  electronic 
surveillance  in  a  lot  of  different  areas,  so  when  we  talked,  we  usu- 
ally took  what  we  called  a  "walk  talk,"  where  we  didn't  believe  it 
would  be  picked  up  by  electronic  surveillance — or  cameras,  for  that 
matter. 

Senator  Roth.  Was  this  one  of  the  meetings  concerning  which  or- 
ganized crime  family  owned  a  piece  of  McGirt's  contract? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes,  it  was. 

Senator  Roth.  How  do  you  know  that  this  particular  videotape 
depicts  one  of  the  McGirt  meetings? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  have  never  met  with  Eddie  Sciandra  about  any- 
thing other  than  McGirt  before  or  after. 

Senator  Roth.  So  that  was  the  only  meeting  you  had  with  Scian- 
dra? 

Mr.  Gravano.  The  only  meetings  I  had  with  him  pertained  to  Al 
Certo  and  McGirt. 

Senator  Roth.  Did  John  Gotti  tell  you  why  he  decided  that 
McGirt  belonged  to  the  Gambino  organized  crime  family? 

Mr.  Gravano.  He  believed  he  belonged  to  our  family  on  my  deci- 
sion by  overhearing  JoJo  Corozzo  and  Eddie  Sciandra,  hearing  the 
story,  I  advised  him  that  he  belonged  with  our  family,  and  that's 
how  he  based  his  decision. 

Senator  Roth.  In  other  words,  John  told  you  that  JoJo  paid 
Eddie  to  walk  away  from  McGirt? 

Mr.  Gravano.  No.  In  meeting,  JoJo  Corozzo  had  told  me  that  he 
had  paid — at  one  time  earlier,  Eddie  Sciandra  was  involved  with 
Buddy  McGirt,  they  both  were  involved — and  at  one  point,  they 
weren't  getting  along,  and  JoJo  Corozzo  paid  I  believe  it  was  $5,000 
for  Eddie  Sciandra  to  walk  away.  They  weren't  getting  along,  and 
Eddie  Sciandra  seemed  to  be  happy  to  take  the  $5,000  and  walk 
away. 

A  time  after  that,  he  seemed  to  be  doing  very,  very  well  in 
boxing,  his  status  was  building,  the  purses  were  building,  and  he 


1  The  videotape  referred  to  was  marked  Exhibit  No.  7  and  can  be  found  in  the  files  of  the 
Subcommittee.  Still  photographs,  from  videotape,  of  Salvatore  Gravano,  Edward  Sciandra  and 
Joseph  Corozzo  were  marked  Exhibit  No.  8  and  can  be  found  on  page  167. 


83 

seemed  to  come  back  into  play  and  wanted  to  be  involved.  He  ad- 
mitted that  he  did  take  money,  but  he  said  that  he  took  the  money 
from  old  moneys  that  were  due.  JoJo  showed  the  purses  that  he 
fought  for,  and  there  really,  really  was  no  money  involved,  and 
there  is  no  way  he  could  have  paid  $5,000  or  better  for  backup 
money  which  came  to  hundreds.  And  I  believed  JoJo  was  telling 
the  truth,  and  this  is  what  I  told  John. 

Senator  Roth.  You  stated  in  your  opening  testimony  that  you 
were  released  by  the  Colombo  family  to  the  Gambino  family.  What 
did  you  mean  by  that? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  in  that  time,  I  wasn't  a  "made"  member.  I 
was  on  record.  I  was  on  record;  I  was  an  associate  of  the  Colombo 
family.  I  wasn't  a  "made"  member.  And  I  was  put  on  record  with 
their  family.  Once  you  are  on  record,  you  belong  to  that  family, 
and  it  takes  an  official  release  from  that  family  for  you  to  leave. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you.  My  time  is  up. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Senator  McCain. 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Gravano,  for  your  testimony.  It  is  very  interest- 
ing. 

In  part  of  your  testimony,  you  talked  about  a  referee  named  Joey 
Curtis  who  could  move  Snipes  up  in  the  World  Boxing  Council 
rankings. 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  McCain.  And  that's  the  outfit  that  is  headed  by  Mr.  Jose 
Sulaiman,  I  believe? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  really  don't  know  who  heads  that  organization. 

Senator  McCain.  You  are  a  fight  fan,  though,  aren't  you? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes,  I  am. 

Senator  McCain.  And  have  you  noticed  in  the  past  on  other  occa- 
sions that  someone  is  moved  up  in  the  WBC  rankings  in  time  for  a 
fight,  and  then  that  person  disappears  or  drops  way  down  again; 
have  you  seen  that  happen  before? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  it's  common  knowledge.  I'm  not  surprised  by 
it.  I  don't  really  follow  that  part  of  it,  but  it  is  basically  common 
knowledge  that  it  can  be  done.  I  wasn't  sure  at  that  point  which 
sanctioning  body  did  it,  because  I  really  wasn't  involved.  Joey 
Curtis  made  me  aware  of  this  sanctioning  body.  I  don't  really  know 
if  any  other  sanctioning  body  does  it  or  not. 

Senator  McCain.  But  it  was  common  knowledge  that  it  could  be 
done? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes;  it's  not  something  that  is  a  major  secret. 

Senator  McCain.  You  mentioned  two  names,  Vito  Antuofermo 
and  Marvin  Hagler,  as  both  having  mob  ties,  or  perhaps  their 
people  having  some  connection;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Senator  McCain.  And  they  both  fought  a  couple  of  fights;  that 
might  have  been  interesting.  Could  I  ask  you  a  couple  of  other 
names — Emanual  Steward,  any  connection  there? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  know  the  name,  but  I  don't  know  of  any  connec- 
tion with  him. 

Senator  McCain.  Mr.  Duva? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Mr.  Lou  Duva,  I  understood  to  be  with  or  close 
with,  anyway,  people  in  the  Genovese  family.  If  we  were  going  to 


84 

go  back  into  boxing,  we  would  be  able  to  reach  people  in  the  Geno- 
vese  family;  we  would  probably  reach  their  boss,  who  was  Chin, 
and  find  out  what  could  be  done.  But  we  never  got  to  that  point. 

Senator  McCain.  And  Mr.  Don  King,  you  mentioned  earlier  had 
been  approached  but  had  been  negative  in  response.  You  have  no 
other  information  about  his  connections? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  know  earlier  on,  a  lot  of  years  ago — this  is 
before  John  Gotti  and  myself  took  over  the  family — that  Don  King 
had  reached  out  for  Paul  Castellano,  and  Paul  Castellano  didn't 
want  to  meet  with  him,  for  whatever  reason.  So  I  knew  he  was 
around,  I  knew  he  had  some  ties,  and  when  we  were  considering 
Snipes  and  Damiani,  we  were  considering  a  possible  conversation 
with  him  for  promotional  reasons,  for  obvious  reasons — I  mean,  he 
literally  just  about  controls  a  good  part  of  boxing. 

Senator  McCain.  Which  brings  me  to — the  connection  with 
either  Mr.  Wynn  or  Mr.  Trump,  you  know  of  no  direct  connection 
except  that  they  have  to  do  business  with  these  individuals  who 
control  the  majority  of  the  best  fighters;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Right.  They  have  done  nothing  wrong  as  far  as  I 
know,  and  they  are  not  with  anybody  as  far  as  I  know.  They  are 
just  in  that  business,  and  they  would  have  to  deal  with  people.  We 
would  have  to  reach  the  people  that  they  would  have  to  deal  with 
in  order  to  talk  with  them. 

Senator  McCain.  Good.  I  think  it  is  important  to  make  it  clear, 
Mr.  Chairman,  about  some  of  these  individuals.  We  don't  want  to 
tar  people  with  a  brush  here. 

You  said  in  your  statement  that  in  the  case  of  the  Renaldo 
Snipes-Damiani  fight,  you  said,  "I'm  sure  that  we  would  have  had 
no  problem  in  convincing  Snipes  to  lose."  Why  do  you  make  that 
statement,  Mr.  Gravano? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  myself  was  very  close  with  Snipes,  and  he  was 
broke  at  that  particular  point,  and  if  we  were  able  to  set  up  a  big 
payday  fight,  I  would  have  told  him  that  there  was  "x"  amount  of 
dollars  in  the  purse;  I  probably  would  have  approached  him  with 
some  cash  under  the  table.  He  was  shunned  by  Don  King.  He  was 
on  the  outskirts.  He  couldn't  get  any  more  fights.  He  was  just 
about  over  the  hill  at  30  some-odd  years  old.  And  I  believe  I  had 
enough  of  a  relationship  with  him  to  convince  him  that  respect. 
And  if  he  would  have  agreed,  I'm  sure  he  would  have  lived  up  to  it. 

Senator  McCain.  At  the  end  of  your  statement  you  say,  "Now, 
because  the  size  of  the  purses  has  gotten  so  big  over  the  past  20 
years,  organized  crime  is  more  and  more  interested  in  getting  back 
into  it."  Do  you  have  any  specifics  of  that  interest? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  for  a  long  time,  it  wasn't  even  talked  about, 
and  through  the  years  it  was  becoming  more  and  more  talked 
about,  again,  with  Lou  Duva  and  names  like  that  within  the  indus- 
try, it  popped  up. 

I  wasn't  really  in  the  boxing  industry.  It  was  more  of  a  hobby  to 
me,  and  I  heard  it  on  the  outskirts.  My  expertise  in  the  Gambino 
family  was  in  construction,  and  I  dealt  with  that.  But  as  the  purses 
got  bigger  and  bigger,  not  only  did  John  Gotti  and  myself  start  to 
look  at  it,  but  I'm  sure  in  conversations  that  I  have  had  with 
people,  more  and  more  people  were  looking  at  it. 


85 

Senator  McCain.  At  these  big  fights,  you'd  have  the  opportunity 
to  see  many  friends  and  adversaries? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Gravano. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Thank  you,  Senator  McCain. 

Senator  Cohen. 

Senator  Cohen.  Just  a  couple  of  follow-up  questions.  With  re- 
spect to  Mr.  Snipes,  you  have  indicated  that  you  were  sure  that 
had  Snipes  given  his  word,  he  would  have  lived  up  to  it.  Is  that 
right? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Senator  Cohen.  What  deterrent  do  you  have  if  they  don't  live  up 
to  it?  Let's  suppose  he  got  in  the  ring,  he  felt  pretty  good,  and  sud- 
denly, victory  is  a  couple  of  punches  away.  Does  he  take  a  look  out 
from  the  ring  and  see  you  out  there  or  maybe  John  Gotti  or  some- 
body else,  and  take  a  fall,  even  though  he  smells  victory  and  the 
other  fighter  may  have  unintentionally  walked  into  a  roundhouse 
punch?  What  deterrent  exists,  either  expressly  or  implicitly,  to 
make  sure  someone  lives  up  to  an  agreement? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  believe  our  whole  background,  John  Gotti's  and 
mine,  our  reputation  of  what  we  did  and  what  happened.  I  believe 
if  he  would  have  knocked  him  out  by  accident,  he  would  have 
picked  him  up.  [Laughter.] 

Senator  Cohen.  I  tried  not  to  make  it  appear  that  was  a  rhetori- 
cal question. 

Is  it  clear  in  the  boxing  industry  that  the  boxer — let  me  put  it 
this  way — have  you  ever  heard  of  a  boxer  being  threatened  with 
injury  because  he  was  unwilling  to  give  organized  crime  a  cut  of 
his  winnings? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  have  never  heard  that  personally.  I  know  that's 
talked  about  not  only  in  boxing,  but  in  a  lot  of  industries,  and  I 
don't  find  that  that  really  happens  all  that  much.  I  believe  it  is  a  2- 
sided  greed.  Organized  crime,  from  what  I  have  seen,  has  a  history 
of  sharing.  A  lot  of  contractors — which  I  relate  slightly  to  the  con- 
struction industry — came  to  us  for  union  favors  and  basically  for 
greed,  because  they  made  more  money  by  coming  to  us.  It  wasn't 
something  that  we  had  to  force  them  over. 

And  along  with  this,  I  happened  to  like  Renaldo  Snipes  and  had 
a  high  respect  for  him  as  a  fighter,  and  in  a  strange  way,  I  think  I 
would  have  been  fair  as  far  as  giving  him  his  last  hurrah  and  some 
money,  and  it  also  would  have  met  my  purpose  with  Damiani  to 
look  so  good  and  beat  somebody  as  classy  a  fighter  as  I  believed 
Snipes  was. 

Senator  Cohen.  You  mentioned  that  McGirt  may  very  well  not 
know  that  he  is  associated  with  organized  crime,  even  indirectly.  Is 
that  right? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Senator  Cohen.  That  it's  very  possible.  Is  it  well-known  that  Mr. 
Certo  is  associated  with  organized  crime? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Senator  Cohen.  So  you  can  have  a  fighter  who  has  someone  who 
is  an  advisor,  manager,  or  promoter  who  is  known  to  associate  with 
organized   crime,   and   you   basically   are   being   handled   by   that 


86 

person,  and  yet  you  would  not  know  that  any  of  your  earnings  are 
going  through  the  money  tree  to  the  roots  of  organized  crime? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Sure,  yes. 

Senator  Cohen.  Tell  me  how  that  works.  You  indicated  that 
McGirt  went  to  the  trial  of  John  Gotti? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Senator  Cohen.  When  someone  goes  to  a  trial  of  someone  who  is 
known  to  be  a  top  person  in  an  organized  crime  family,  does  that 
imply  knowledge  that  one's  earnings  are  in  any  way  going  in  that 
direction?  In  other  words,  you've  got  a  manager 

Mr.  Gravano.  No,  but  it's  a  tactic  of  ours,  Senator — I'm  sorry, 
did  I  interrupt  you? 

Senator  Cohen.  No,  that's  all  right. 

Mr.  Gravano.  It's  a  tactic  of  ours.  I  believe  there  was  a  "made" 
member,  Johnny  DiGilio,  who  was  in  the  Genovese  family,  who 
was  on  trial,  a  Federal  trial,  I  believe,  in  New  Jersey,  where  Mu- 
hammad Ali  and  a  few  people  came  to  the  trial.  And  what  I  believe 
it  does  is  that  if  you  have  black  jurors,  and  you  see  a  Sugar  Ray 
Leonard  or  a  Muhammad  Ali  or  a  Joe  Frazier,  you  have  a  warm 
spot  for  these  people,  which  is  basically 

Senator  Cohen.  Right.  I  understand  the  tactic,  but  I  was  wonder- 
ing about  the  fighter  himself  when  Al  Certo  or  somebody  says, 
"We'd  like  to  have  you  go  to  the  trial  of  John  Gotti." 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  I'm  sure  Al  Certo  knows  the  motive.  I  don't 
really  know  if  Buddy  McGirt  understands  or  knows  the  motive.  I 
say  that  because  I'm  not  in  those  conversations.  I  don't  know  what 
Al  Certo  tells  him.  He  could  be  conning  him  and  saying,  "You 
know,  he  thinks  the  world  of  you  as  a  fighter.  Why  don't  you  come 
down  and  see  him?"  I  don't  know  exactly  what 

Senator  Cohen.  That's  fair  enough.  I'm  just  trying  to  find  out 
how  the  money  flows.  Perhaps  you  could  trace  for  us  what  happens 
when  a  fighter  earns  the  purse,  and  then  the  manager  or  promoter 
gets  a  piece  of  that.  How  does  the  money  go  through  the  family? 
Trace  the  money  for  us,  if  you  would. 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  it  would  go  through  the  trainer  or  manager, 
trainer-manager.  He  has  a  percentage  of  the  fighter.  He  would  get 
a  percentage  of  that.  One  of  the  ways — there  are  a  few  ways — 
would  be  that  when  he  gets  his  check  and  he  cashes  it,  he  sends  his 
piece  up,  whatever  his  deal  may  be — 20,  30,  40,  or  50  percent, 
whether  he  is  partners  with  John  Gotti — whatever  his  specific  deal 
is,  he'll  send  his  end  of  the  cash  up  after  taxes,  because  he  obvious- 
ly can't  duck  that. 

But  there  are  other  ways  where  we  could  cheat  or  duck,  if  I 
could  use  those  terms.  We  would  set  up  a  gym,  and  if  we  were  talk- 
ing about  real  big  money,  then  we  could  talk  padding  training  ex- 
penses, we  could  put  people  to  work,  we  could  go  into  promotional. 
We  can  go  into  a  lot  of  areas  to  absorb  part  of  that  big  purse;  espe- 
cially when  you  are  talking  about  purses  that  go  into  the  tens  of 
millions  of  dollars,  we  would  really  be  able  to — I  don't  know  the 
word — we  would  really  be  able  to  lunge  into  that. 

Senator  Cohen.  What  happens  when  a  fighter  finds  out  that  in 
some  way,  his  earnings  are  going  into  organized  crime,  and  he 
wants  to  break  away  from  that  family?  Does  the  family  seek  to  pre- 
vent that  from  taking  place? 


87 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  traditionally,  we  have  given  people  a  hard 
time  with  that  situation,  Senator.  We  aren't  too  fond  of  them  walk- 
ing away  from  us. 

Senator  Cohen.  I'm  sorry? 

Mr.  Gravano.  We  aren't  too  fond  of  them  walking  away,  and  we 
would  traditionally  give  them  a  hard  time.  I  don't  know  how  far — 
that  would  be  up  to  each  person  and  each  particular  crime  family 
what  they  would  do. 

Senator  Cohen.  So,  once  organized  crime  has  an  interest  in  a 
fighter,  even  though  that  fighter  may  not  know  that  he  is  owned  or 
at  least  influenced  by  organized  crime,  he  can't  walk  away? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  I  wouldn't  say  that.  If  his  manager  was  with 
us,  he  couldn't  walk  away.  If  the  fighter  really  knew  nothing,  I 
don't  really  know  how  we  can  go  after  him,  except  that  he  would 
lose  his  power  base  and  connections,  and  we  would  try  and  cut  him 
off  that  way.  If  he  himself  shook  our  hand  and  made  a  deal  with 
us,  it  would  be  a  lot  harder  for  him  to  walk  away. 

Senator  Cohen.  So  if  he  didn't  know  he  was  in  any  way  associat- 
ed, you  might  try  to  perhaps  reduce  his  ratings  or  rankings? 

Mr.  Gravano.  We  would  use  whatever  tactics  we  could  use  short 
of  violence,  because  he  really  doesn't  know  what  he  is  involved 
with.  If  he  knew  what  he  was  involved  with,  we  would  use  just 
about  any  tactic,  including  violence. 

Senator  Cohen.  Last  year,  the  Subcommittee  had  testimony  al- 
leging that  Bob  Lee,  who  was  then  the  New  Jersey  Deputy  Boxing 
Commissioner,  had  taken  a  bribe  in  order  to  expedite  an  applica- 
tion for  a  boxing  promoter's  license.  Are  you  aware  of  any  other 
instance  in  which  there  is  corruption  among  the  boxing  commis- 
sions in  New  Jersey,  New  York,  or  anywhere  in  this  country?  You 
talked  about  the  WBC  operating  out  of  Mexico  and  trying  to  influ- 
ence the  rankings  there.  What  about  here  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Gravano.  No,  I  don't  know  any  situations  like  that,  Senator. 

Senator  Cohen.  And  one  final  question.  If  you  were  still  a 
member  of  the  Gambino  family,  could  you  tell  us  what  action  by 
Federal  or  State  agencies  it  would  take  to  convince  you  that  it  was 
time  to  move  away  from  participating  in  boxing  matches?  In  other 
words,  is  there  anything  that  the  Federal  Government  could  do  to 
discourage  organized  crime  from  its  association  with  boxing? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Make  the  purses  very  small.  [Laughter.] 

Senator  Cohen.  Make  the  purses  small.  No  amount  of  Federal 
regulation  per  se  is  going  to  deter  the  influence  as  long  as  the 
money  is  there? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  don't  believe  so,  Senator,  no. 

Senator  Cohen.  Thank  you. 

That's  all  I  have,  Mr.  Chairman.  Thank  you. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Thank  you,  Senator  Cohen. 

Senator  Roth,  do  you  have  any  other  questions? 

Senator  Roth.  Yes,  I  do  have  a  few  more. 

Carrying  on  with  the  question  of  Mr.  Cohen,  have  the  State  com- 
missions been  effective  in  regulating  boxing  insofar  as  the  mob  is 
concerned? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  don't  even  think  we  know  that  they  exist,  to  be 
honest  with  you;  they  aren't  that  effective,  because  they  don't 
bother  us,  and  they  don't  hinder  us  in  any  of  our  movements,  and  I 


have  never  heard  them  involved  in  any  of  the  conversations  that 
we  would  have  to  do  this,  this,  or  this  to  go  around  them.  So  I 
really  don't — I  don't  even  know  what  they  do,  basically. 

Senator  Roth.  If  the  Federal  Government  by  one  means  or  an- 
other became  involved  in  regulation  of  professional  boxing,  would 
that  make  a  difference?  Would  the  mob  be  more  circumspect,  more 
concerned  about  being  involved  in  boxing? 

Mr.  Gravano.  No. 

Senator  Roth.  It  would  make  no  difference  at  all? 

Mr.  Gravano.  No. 

Senator  Roth.  You  testified  that  Joey  Curtis  told  you  he  could 
move  up  your  boxer's  ranking  in  the  WBC  for  $5,000  to  $10,000. 
Joey  Curtis  has  categorically  denied  to  staff  that  anything  like  that 
ever  happened.  Are  you  certain  of  your  testimony? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Senator,  I  can  only  say  what  I  know.  I  can't  really 
comment  on  what  they  say  and  what  they  don't  say.  I  can  only 
comment  that  what  I  say  is  the  truth,  and  I  only  say  exactly  what 
I  know. 

Senator  Roth.  And  that  was  that  Joey  Curtis  told  you  he  could 
move  up  your  boxer's  ranking  in  the  WBC  for  $5,000  to  $10,000;  is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  recall  Joey  Curtis  visiting  the  Ravenite 
Social  Club? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes,  I  do. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Curtis  admits  visiting  the  social  club,  but  says 
it  is  open  to  any  member  of  the  public.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gravano.  No.  It's  a  private  club.  It's  the  Gambino  headquar- 
ters. If  you  want  me  to  explain  it  slightly,  there  is  a  brick  wall 
with  almost  no  windows,  a  steel  door  with,  at  any  given  time,  10, 
15  guys  standing  outside,  smoking  some  cigars  and  stuff.  I  don't 
really  think  that's  a  sign  that  we're  open  to  the  public.  [Laughter.] 

Senator  Roth.  An  attorney  for  Renaldo  Snipes  and  his  former 
manager,  Sal  Pascale,  advised  that  they  would  invoke  the  Fifth 
Amendment  if  called  to  testify  here  today.  They  did  admit  in  a 
staff  interview  that  they  attended  a  meeting  with  you  in  Atlantic 
City,  in  which  a  future  boxing  match  was  discussed,  but  they 
claimed  the  meeting  was  set  up  on  the  spur  of  the  moment  and  not 
planned  in  advance.  Is  this  true? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  don't  believe,  Senator,  that  you  can  walk  into 
Donald  Trump's  boxing  staff  unannounced  and  have  a  meeting 
that  you  were  going  to  fight  a  championship  fight.  It  would  have  to 
be  something  that  was  set  up.  I  didn't  know  Mark  Etess  from  a 
hole  in  the  wall  prior  to  that,  and  I  don't  see  how  that  could  be 
done.  And  I'm  sure  that  Mark  Etess — who  I  don't  believe  did  any- 
thing wrong — knows  of  the  meeting  and  knows  it  was  set  up.  I 
mean,  I  just  didn't  walk  in  off  the  street. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  other  Gambino  family  members  involved  in 
boxing  gyms? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Excuse  me,  Senator? 

Senator  Roth.  Are  other  members  of  the  Gambino  family  in- 
volved in  boxing  gyms?  What  about  John  Gotti,  Jr.? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  there's  a  gym  that  we're  involved  with  that 
Tommy  Gallagher  has.  He  was  a  long-time  friend  of  John  Gotti.  I 


89 

believe  now  he  has  a  gym  in  Queens  and  is  very,  very  close  or  with 
John,  Jr.  And  I  believe  his  gym  is  right  next  to  or  right  around  the 
Bergen  Hunt  and  Fish  Club  in  Queens.  I  believe  he  looked  for  some 
funding  and  some  backing  and  found  it. 

Senator  Roth.  My  last  question  is  this.  Some  people  might  ask 
what  difference  does  it  make  if  organized  crime  owns  a  piece  of  a 
boxer.  But  isn't  it  true  that  organized  crime,  even  when  involved  in 
a  legitimate  business,  tries  to  take  advantage,  cut  corners?  Does  it 
make  a  difference  if  the  mob  owns  a  piece  of  a  boxer? 

Mr.  Gravano.  Well,  again,  we  do  have  that  habit  of  cheating  a 
little  bit.  And  if  we  have  this,  we  use  it  as  contacts  in  not  only 
boxing,  but  a  lot  of  other  areas  that  we  look  at.  We  look  past  just 
strictly  the  boxing.  Whether  it  be  officials  of  State,  or  a  person  like 
Trump,  the  conversations  might  start  to  drift  from  boxing  into  con- 
struction, or  whatever  we  felt  we  could  do.  If  somebody  went  to 
John  and  said  that  he  wanted  to  buy  a  condo  in  Trump  Tower,  and 
we  were  talking  to  him  about  boxing,  I'm  sure  that  a  week  later  or 
a  month  later,  the  conversation  would  start  to  change  into  buying 
that  condo  or  doing  the  sheetrock  in  one  of  the  buildings  that  he's 
doing,  or  the  plumbing  or  the  electrical.  This  is  what  we  have  done 
in  the  past  in  a  lot  of  industries  fairly  well.  We  walked  away  from 
the  boxing,  but  again,  as  it  started  to  build  money-wise  and  power 
base-wise,  we  would  get  back  into  it  for  a  host  of  different  reasons. 

Senator  Roth.  Because  of  the  big  money  now  involved  in  profes- 
sional boxing,  should  we  expect  more  involvement  on  the  part  of 
organized  crime  in  boxing? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  believe  so. 

Senator  Roth.  They'll  go  where  the  money  is. 

Mr.  Gravano.  Excuse  me? 

Senator  Roth.  They'll  go  where  the  money  is. 

Mr.  Gravano.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  That's  all  the  questions  I  have,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Mr.  Gravano,  one  final  question.  I  believe  in 
your  statement,  or  in  answer  to  one  of  the  earlier  questions,  you 
mentioned  that  there  was  someone  in  Cleveland  who  had  access  to 
Don  King.  Could  you  tell  us  who  that  was  and  what  kind  of  access? 

Mr.  Gravano.  I  don't  know  who  the  specific  person  was.  When  I 
said  that,  I  was  referring  to  the  Cleveland  family.  The  Cleveland 
family  has  certain  ties  to  Don  King,  and  Raymond  Patriarca,  who 
is  the  boss  in  Providence,  told  us  that  he  knew  of  this  and  he  could 
reach  the  Cleveland  people  to  tell  them  to  have  Don  King  meet  us. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Any  other  questions,  Senator  Roth,  Senator 
Cohen,  or  Senator  McCain? 

Senator  Roth.  No  questions. 

Senator  Cohen.  No  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  McCain.  No,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Chairman  Nunn.  OK.  I  think  that's  all,  Mr.  Gravano.  We  appre- 
ciate your  cooperation  with  the  Subcommittee.  You  have  been  very 
helpful. 

Mr.  Gravano.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Thank  you. 

We'll  have  security  take  Mr.  Gravano  out,  and  I'll  ask  everyone 
to  remain  seated  until  that  occurs. 

[Pause.] 


65-875  0-93-4 


90 

Chairman  Nunn.  Our  next  witnesses  today  will  be  Staff  Counsel 
Leighton  Lord  and  Staff  Counsel  Steve  Levin,  of  the  Permanent 
Subcommittee  on  Investigations.  They  have  conducted  a  very  ex- 
tensive investigation  into  professional  boxing.  This  afternoon  they 
will  provide  us  with  more  of  the  results  of  that  investigation. 

I'll  ask  both  of  you  to  hold  up  your  right  hand  before  you  take 
your  seat  and  take  the  oath.  Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  will 
give  before  the  Subcommittee  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth, 
and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Lord.  I  do. 

Mr.  Levin.  I  do. 

Chairman  Nunn.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Roth.  Please  proceed. 

TESTIMONY  OF  W.  LEIGHTON  LORD  III,  MINORITY  STAFF  COUN- 
SEL; ACCOMPANIED  BY  STEPHEN  LEVIN,  MINORITY  STAFF 
COUNSEL,  PERMANENT  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS, 
COMMITTEE  ON  GOVERNMENTAL  AFFAIRS,  U.S.  SENATE 

Mr.  Lord.  Thank  you,  Senator. 

When  the  Senate  last  looked  into  professional  boxing  over  30 
years  ago,  it  found  a  nationwide  conspiracy  between  organized 
crime  and  members  of  the  boxing  industry  to  control  the  major 
boxing  contracts  in  the  United  States. 

Boxing  greats  such  as  Jake  LaMotta  testified  that  they  were 
forced  to  cooperate  with  underworld  figures  to  have  the  opportuni- 
ty to  compete  for  championship  titles.  The  nature  of  organized 
crime  involvement  in  the  boxing  industry  has  changed  since  the 
1940's  and  1950's.  Rather  than  attempting  to  profit  from  complete 
control  of  boxing,  as  was  the  case  30  years  ago,  organized  crime 
now  attempts  to  profit  by  controlling  individual  boxers  and  manag- 
ers or  by  exercising  influence  with  regard  to  an  individual  promot- 
er. 

Today,  members  and  associates  of  organized  crime  also  partici- 
pate in  boxing  as  managers,  advisors  and  investors.  As  a  result,  or- 
ganized crime  profits  from  and  affects  the  sport  of  boxing. 

The  primary  attraction  for  organized  crime  is,  of  course,  the 
large  sums  of  money  that  can  be  made.  As  Senator  Roth  stated,  a 
boxer  can  make  in  one  event  what  it  took  a  boxer  a  lifetime  to 
earn  30  years  ago.  In  addition,  the  boxing  industry  is  ideally  suited 
for  infiltration  by  organized  crime  because  it  is  ineffectively  regu- 
lated. State  boxing  regulators  make  almost  no  effort  to  exclude  or- 
ganized crime  members  and  associates  from  participating  in 
boxing,  even  where  State  regulations  explicitly  prohibit  such  in- 
volvement. 

Our  investigation  has  uncovered  evidence  that  a  number  of  orga- 
nized crime  figures  are  heavily  involved  with  several  well-known 
boxers.  We  do  not,  however,  make  the  claim  that  all  or  even  most 
boxers  are  connected  with  organized  crime.  Very  little  investiga- 
tion has  been  done  in  this  area  by  law  enforcement  entities. 

We  have,  moreover,  found  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  organized 
crime  currently  exerts  the  type  of  influence  over  the  sport  of 
boxing  that  it  did  in  the  1940's  and  1950's.  We  concentrated  our  in- 
vestigation on  three  case  studies  involving  the  organized  crime  con- 


91 

nections  of  two  former  and  one  current  world  champion.  Each  of 
these  boxers  has  denied  that  they  are  knowingly  controlled  or  in- 
fluenced by  organized  crime.  It  is  unclear  whether  these  boxers  are 
unwitting  dupes  or  willing  participants  with  organized  crime  fig- 
ures. 

These  three  case  studies  illustrate  three  forms  of  organized  crime 
involvement  in  boxing  and  also  represent  three  examples  of  how 
the  current  regulatory  structure  has  failed  to  keep  organized  crime 
out  of  the  boxing  industry. 

On  the  far  right  of  the  chart, l  we  have  the  name  of  former  IBF 
super  middleweight  champion  Iran  Barkley.  Barkley  has  held  the 
WBC  middleweight  title  and  has  had  a  number  of  high-profile,  big 
money  fights.  Barkley  testified  at  a  Subcommittee  deposition  that 
he  currently  does  not  have  a  manager  of  record,  but  that  he  does 
have  several  unlicensed  advisors.  One  of  these  advisors  is  Lenny 
Minuto.  Minuto  is  classified  by  several  law  enforcement  agencies 
as  an  associate  of  the  Luchese  crime  family.  There  is  additional  in- 
formation that  he  has  had  past  and  possibly  current  affiliations 
with  the  Gambino  and  Genovese  families. 

Minuto  is  believed  to  be  active  in  the  Giampa  crew  of  the  Lu- 
chese family  at  this  time.  Minuto  also  has  a  criminal  record,  in- 
cluding 7  gambling  convictions  and  one  conviction  for  bribing  a 
public  official. 

And  I'd  like  to  note,  Senator,  before  going  any  further,  that  in 
listing  any  person  on  this  chart  as  having  organized  crime  connec- 
tions, we  have  followed  the  past  PSI  practice  of  requiring  corrobo- 
rating information  from  at  least  two  separate  law  enforcement 
agencies,2  and  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Minuto,  we  also  have  an  affirma- 
tion submitted  by  Mr.  Alfonse  D'Arco,  the  former  underboss  of  the 
Luchese  family,  indicating  Mr.  Minuto's  Luchese  connections. 

At  this  time,  I  would  like  to  offer  for  introduction  a  copy  of  the 
D'Arco  affirmation.3 

Senator  Roth.  It  will  be  so  admitted,  unless  there  is  some  objec- 
tion. 

Mr.  Lord.  Barkley  testified  at  deposition  that  Lenny  Minuto  as- 
sists him  with  contract  negotiations  and  with  personal  invest- 
ments. According  to  Barkley,  Minuto  receives  10  percent  of  Bark- 
ley's  earnings,  which  would  equal  roughly  $100,000  for  Barkley's 
most  recent  fight  against  James  Toney. 

We  also  have  other  evidence,  however,  indicating  that  Minuto  re- 
ceived as  much  as  $225,000  from  the  Toney  fight  alone. 

The  Barkley  and  Minuto  relationship  is  illustrative  of  how  orga- 
nized crime  figures  are  involved  in  the  boxing  industry  as  paid,  un- 
licensed advisors.  The  practice  of  calling  oneself  an  "advisor"  ap- 
pears to  be  an  attempt  to  avoid  State  licensure  requirements  de- 
spite the  fact  that  so-called  "advisors"  often  fit  statutory  defini- 
tions of  managers.  Most  States  have  very  broad  definitions  of  a 
boxing  manager.  For  example,  in  New  Jersey,  a  "manager"  is  de- 
fined as  "anyone  who  directly  or  indirectly  directs  or  administers 


1  Exhibit  No.  1  appears  on  page  163. 

2  Sealed  Exhibit  No.  2  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

3  Exhibit  No.  31  appears  on  page  255. 


92 

the  affairs  of  a  boxer,  or  anyone  who  is  entitled  to  10  percent  or 
more  of  a  boxer's  earnings." 

One  obvious  reason  that  Lenny  Minuto  and  others  like  him 
might  wish  to  avoid  licensure  is  the  fear  of  being  denied  a  license 
and  thereby  excluded  from  participating  in  boxing  because  of  their 
criminal  records  or  organized  crime  associations.  That  fear,  howev- 
er, is  largely  unfounded  since  State  boxing  regulators  do  not  as  a 
rule  inquire  into  the  criminal  history  or  background  of  their  licen- 
sure applicants. 

The  boxer  represented  in  the  middle  of  the  chart  is  WBA  cruiser- 
weight  champion  Bobby  Czyz.  Czyz  has  had  a  long  career,  with  his 
most  profitable  fights  taking  place  in  the  last  few  years.  In  1981, 
Czyz'  father  sold  the  right  to  Czyz'  future  boxing  earnings  to 
Andrew  Licari  and  Andrew  Dembrowski.  Under  the  agreement, 
Licari  and  Dembrowski  were  to  receive  a  percentage  of  Czyz'  future 
earnings  in  exchange  for  $300,000.  Initially,  Licari  and  Dembrowski 
were  to  receive  26  percent  of  Czyz'  earnings  for  5  years  and  then  5 
percent  for  an  additional  5  years. 

The  agreement  has,  however,  been  modified  twice  so  that  Licari 
and  Dembrowski  could  continue  to  receive  26  percent  of  Czyz' 
boxing  earnings.  Czyz  testified  at  the  Subcommittee's  August  hear- 
ing that  he  voluntarily  extended  the  boxing  agreement  because 
Licari  and  Dembrowski  had  not  gotten  their  investment  back.  The 
most  recent  agreement,  which  is  oral,  apparently  remains  in  force 
today. 

Licari  is  classified  by  several  law  enforcement  entities  as  a  Lu- 
chese  soldier  and  has  been  alleged  to  be  part  of  what  was  the  Ac- 
cetturo  crew  of  the  Luchese  family.  He  is  also  identified  as  such  in 
the  previously  mentioned  affirmation  of  former  Luchese  acting 
boss  Alfonse  D'Arco.  Dembrowski  is  classified  as  a  Luchese  associ- 
ate. 

At  a  Subcommittee  deposition,  Licari  denied  membership  in  or 
involvement  with  organized  crime.  Licari  did,  however,  acknowl- 
edge personal  contact  with  the  alleged  members  of  the  Accetturo 
crew. 

Licari  and  Dembrowski  are  not  licensed  to  participate  in  boxing. 
State  boxing  regulations  generally  do  not  require  that  passive  in- 
vestors such  as  Licari  and  Dembrowski  be  licensed  to  participate  in 
boxing,  or  that  investments  such  as  the  one  held  by  Licari  and 
Dembrowski  be  recorded  or  disclosed. 

The  boxer  on  the  far  left  of  the  chart  is  James  "Buddy"  McGirt. 
McGirt  has  held  two  world  titles  and  was  recently  paid  a  purse  of 
$1  million  in  his  unsuccessful  defense  of  his  WBC  title.  McGirt's  re- 
lationship with  organized  crime  exists  on  two  levels.  The  first  level 
is  McGirt's  management  team  of  Al  Certo  and  Stuart  Weiner.  Law 
enforcement  has  long  considered  Certo  an  associate  of  the  Geno- 
vese  and  Gambino  crime  families. 

Senator  Cohen.  Mr.  Lord,  could  I  interrupt  you?  We've  got  a 
vote  coming  up,  and  I  just  want  to  clarify  for  my  own  purposes 
that  when  you  put  a  chart  up  there  like  that,  you  are  not  suggest- 
ing that  any  of  the  fighters  involved  know  that  they  are  involved 
in  any  way  with  organized  crime.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Lord.  That's  right,  Senator.  We  don't  take  a  position  on  that 
whatsoever  because  we  have  no  evidence  of  that. 


93 

Senator  Cohen.  All  right.  And  with  respect  to  the  second  line  of 
individuals,  are  you  making  allegations  about  any  of  the  individ- 
uals involved  there,  that  they  are  actively  involved? 

Mr.  Lord.  Yes,  Senator.  We  have  information  from  at  least  two 
law  enforcement  agencies,  as  we  require  under  our  internal  rules, 
that  they  do  in  fact  have  organized  crime  connections. 

Senator  Roth  [presiding].  I  thought  I  would  run  and  vote  if  you 
could  stay,  so  we  can  keep  it  going. 

Senator  Cohen.  Fine.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Lord.  McGirt's  relationship  with  organized  crime  exists  on 
two  levels.  The  first  level  is  McGirt's  management  team  of  Al 
Certo  and  Stuart  Weiner.  Law  enforcement  has  long  considered 
Certo  an  associate  of  the  Genovese  and  Gambino  crime  families. 
Weiner  is  an  associate  of  the  Gambino  family  and  has  been  recent- 
ly named  in  an  indictment  handed  down  by  the  Manhattan  District 
Attorney's  Office  as  a  member  of  the  JoJo  Corozzo  crew  of  the 
Gambino  family. 

Certo  and  Weiner  each  receive  at  least  the  33  Va  percent  manag- 
ers' cut  of  McGirt's  boxing  earnings.  Certo  and  Weiner  share  vari- 
ous management  responsibilities,  yet  only  Certo  is  licensed  as  a 
manager  at  this  time.  Weiner  has  not  been  licensed  to  participate 
in  boxing  since  1991  when  he  was  licensed  as  a  second  in  Nevada. 

Although  Weiner  has  avoided  licensure,  his  relationship  with 
McGirt  is  not  secret.  Both  McGirt  and  Certo  at  Subcommittee  depo- 
sitions acknowledge  that  Weiner  serves  as  a  co-manager  to  McGirt. 
In  addition,  Weiner  has  also  received  payments  due  McGirt  direct- 
ly from  McGirt's  promoter,  Madison  Square  Garden.  Weiner  also 
has  check  writing  authority  on  the  account  of  Alfred  Certissimo, 
Inc.,  the  company  that  receives  all  of  McGirt's  boxing  earnings. 

Weiner  is  clearly  acting  as  an  unlicensed  co-manager  in  violation 
of  several  different  State  regulations. 

The  second  level  of  McGirt's  involvement  with  organized  crime  is 
the  secret  ownership  by  Gambino  soldier  Joseph  "Jo Jo"  Corozzo  of 
some  percentage  of  McGirt's  earnings.  Corozzo's  ownership  of 
McGirt  was  first  revealed  to  the  Subcommittee  by  Salvatore  Gra- 
vano,  who  just  testified  about  the  relationship.  Subcommittee  depo- 
sitions of  Certo  and  McGirt  revealed  that  Weiner  is  a  personal 
friend  of  Corozzo  and  that  both  Certo  and  McGirt  were  introduced 
to  Corozzo  by  Weiner.  Certo  and  McGirt  both  testified  under  oath 
that  to  their  knowledge,  Corozzo  does  not  have  an  ownership  inter- 
est in  McGirt's  boxing  earnings.  JoJo  Corozzo  invoked  the  Fifth 
Amendment  in  response  to  all  questions  during  his  Subcommittee 
deposition. 

Subcommittee  staff,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Government  Ac- 
counting Office,  conducted  a  comprehensive  analysis  of  the  finan- 
cial records  of  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.,  the  company  controlled  by 
Certo  and  Weiner,  that  holds  all  of  McGirt's  earnings.  Although  we 
found  no  direct  evidence  of  payments  being  made  to  Corozzo,  we 
did  find  a  pattern  of  very  questionable  payment  practices. 1 

The  exhibit  on  my  right  represents  the  flow  of  funds  from 
McGirt's  November  29,  1991  fight  against  Simon  Brown.2  This  ex- 


1  Exhibit  No.  44  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

2  Exhibit  No.  4  appears  on  page  164. 


94 

hibit  illustrates  how  all  money  due  McGirt  goes  directly  to  Alfred 
Certissimo,  Inc.  In  this  case,  McGirt's  promoter,  Madison  Square 
Garden,  wrote  checks  directly  to  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.,  from 
McGirt's  purse  earnings  and  training  expenses. 

We  also  have  evidence  that  Madison  Square  Garden  paid  Weiner 
$40,000  of  the  money  owed  McGirt  in  cash,  but  have  been  unable  to 
determine  if  this  money  has  been  deposited  or  how  it  has  been 
spent.  I'd  like  to  point  out  that  on  the  chart  we  list  the  check 
number  because  we  initially  thought  that  the  $40,000  was  paid  by 
check  because  we  were  given  a  check  showing  the  $40,000  payment. 
We  have  since  discovered  that  the  check  was  voided,  and  it  was 
never  negotiated,  and  the  transaction  was  actually  conducted  in 
cash. 

Although  Nevada  has  a  regulation  requiring  that  a  boxer  be  paid 
directly,  McGirt  requested  that  the  Nevada  commission  waive  this 
regulation  so  that  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.,  would  be  paid  directly. 
Since  such  regulations  are  intended  to  lessen  the  likelihood  that  a 
boxer  will  be  cheated  by  his  management,  this  arrangement  is 
questionable  and  circumvents  the  intent  of  State  regulations. 

One  questionable  pattern  and  practice  involves  the  so-called 
"third  party  endorser"  transactions.  The  exhibit  that  we  are  now 
putting  up  illustrates  this  practice.1 

As  the  exhibit  indicates,  Stuart  Weiner  wrote  a  check  for  $3,000 
to  himself.  I  am  referring  to  the  top  check.  Then,  as  the  back  of  the 
check  indicates,  which  is  right  under  the  check  on  top,  he  endorsed 
the  check  with  his  name  and  then  wrote  the  third  party  endorse- 
ment of  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.  Although  it  looks  like  the  check 
was  redeposited  into  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.'s  account,  the  corre- 
sponding bank  statement  does  not  list  a  specific  $3,000  deposit. 
Certo  testified  at  his  deposition  2  that  such  checks  are  on  occasion 
converted  into  cash.  Our  analysis  of  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.'s 
checks,  bank  statements  and  tax  records  indicate  that  practically 
all  third  party  endorser  checks  are  apparently  converted  into  cash. 
Over  10  percent  of  all  checks  written  on  the  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc. 
account  for  a  3-year  period  were  handled  in  this  manner. 

A  second  questionable  pattern  involved  the  practice  of  writing 
two  separate  checks  to  the  same  payee  on  the  same  day.  This  prac- 
tice is  illustrated  by  the  same  exhibit  that  we  have  up  now.  As  you 
can  see,  Stuart  Weiner  wrote  two  checks  to  himself  on  March  31, 
1990.  Check  No.  1289,  which  is  on  the  top,  is  for  $3,000.  Check  No. 
1291,  on  the  bottom,  is  for  $2,170.  The  $3,000  check  was  third  party 
endorsed,  leading  us  to  suspect  it  was  converted  into  cash,  and  the 
$2,170  check  appears  to  have  been  deposited  in  another  account. 

On  eight  separate  occasions,  Stuart  Weiner  wrote  himself  two 
separate  checks  for  significant  amounts  of  money  on  the  same  day. 
On  one  day,  Weiner  wrote  three  separate  checks  to  himself. 

While  this  evidence  is  not  conclusive  proof  of  wrongdoing,  it 
clearly  provides  a  ready  method  for  siphoning  off  large  sums  of 
money  in  the  form  of  cash. 

In  conclusion 


1  Exhibit  No.  5  appears  on  page  165. 

2Exhibit  No.  12  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


95 

Senator  Cohen.  How  does  writing  the  second  one  siphon  off  a 
large  amount  of  money  in  that  case?  If  he  writes  a  check  out  to 
himself  and  cashes  it,  and  there  is  a  bank  record  of  it,  how  is  that 
siphoning  off  money? 

Mr.  Lord.  Senator,  on  the  bottom,  we  are  assuming  that  he 
might  have  deposited  that  into  an  account,  although  if  it  is  his 
bank,  he  could  have  cashed  it.  We  have  no  idea.  I'm  saying  the  top 
check,  which  is  a  third  party  endorser  check,  was  likely  converted 
into  cash  because  in  our  analysis  of  all  the  deposits  made  into 
Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.,  up  against  their  income  reflected  on  their 
tax  record,  minus  loans,  shows  that  these  checks  could  not  have 
been  redeposited  or  they  wouldn't  have  balanced.  And  GAO  helped 
us  come  to  the  conclusion  of  that  analysis. 

Senator  Cohen.  But  that  wouldn't  apply  to  the  second  check, 
though. 

Mr.  Lord.  We  have  no  idea,  because  we  did  not  subpoena  Mr. 
Weiner's  bank  records.  We  have  no  idea  if  that  is  the  case. 

In  conclusion,  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  under  the 
present  regulatory  structure,  anything  will  change.  The  current 
regulatory  structure  has  had  over  30  years  to  rid  boxing  of  orga- 
nized crime  influence  and  involvement,  and  it  has  not  done  so.  We 
agree  with  the  view  of  former  organized  crime  member  Michael 
Franzese  and  former  FBI  agent  Joseph  Spinelli,  that  the  most  ef- 
fective way  to  rid  boxing  of  organized  crime  is  Federal  oversight  of 
the  industry. 

Senator  at  this  time,  I  have  a  list  of  44  exhibits  that  I  would  re- 
quest be  admitted  into  the  record  at  this  time. 

Senator  Cohen.  [Presiding.]  Without  objection,  they  will  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  record. 

Mr.  Lord.  Thank  you,  and  we'll  be  happy  to  answer  any  ques- 
tions. 

[The  prepared  statement  of  Messrs.  Lord  and  Levin  follows:] 

CORRUPTION  IN  PROFESSIONAL  BOXING— PART  II 

ORGANIZED  CRIME  INVOLVEMENT 

PERMANENT  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS  » 

Background — Kefauver  Hearings 

The  Staff  Statement  of  March  10,  1993  pointed  out  that  the  United  States  Senate 
last  looked  into  organized  crime  involvement  in  professional  boxing  30  years  ago. 
Between  1960  and  1961,  the  Senate  Subcommittee  on  Antitrust  and  Monopoly, 
chaired  by  Senator  Estes  Kefauver  (D-Tenn.),  conducted  an  extensive  investigation, 
including  13  days  of  hearings,  concerning  the  boxing  industry.2  Although  the  inves- 
tigation and  hearings  concentrated  on  anti-competitive  practices  in  the  boxing  in- 
dustry, they  additionally  exposed  widespread  organized  crime  involvement  in 
boxing.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  hearings,  Senator  Kefauver  stated  that  those  hear- 
ings, "showed  beyond  any  doubt  that  professional  boxing  has  had  too  many  connec- 
tions with  the  underworld."  3 


1  This  Staff  Statement  was  prepared  by  the  Minority  Staff  of  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on 
Investigations  of  the  Governmental  Affairs  Committee  of  the  U.S.  Senate. 

2  U.S.  Congress.  Senate  Committee  on  the  Judiciary.  Subcommittee  on  Antitrust  and  Monopo- 
ly. Professional  Boxing  Hearings,  86th  Congress  2d  Session.  Washington,  D.C.,  June  14  and  15, 
and  December  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  12,  13  and  14,  1960,  87th  Congress  1st  Session,  Washington,  D.C.,  May 
31,  June  1  and  2,  1961. 

3  Kefauver,  Senator  Estes.  National  Boxing  Commission,  Remarks  in  the  Senate.  Congression- 
al Record,  v.  109.  March  25,  1963.  p.  4786. 


96 

The  Kefauver  hearings  were  apparently  brought  about  by  a  series  of  criminal  in- 
vestigations, indictments  and  convictions  exposing  organized  crime  involvement  in 
the  boxing  industry  during  the  late  1950s.4  At  the  start  of  the  hearings,  Senator 
Kefauver  reported  that  a  criminal  investigation  in  New  York  had  led  to  the  convic- 
tion of  underworld  figures  Paul  John  "Frank"  Carbo  and  Gabriel  Genovese  for  their 
secret  boxing  activities.  That  same  New  York  investigation  further  uncovered  that 
organized  crime  figure  Anthony  "Tony  Fats"  Salerno  had  financed  the  first  Johans- 
son vs.  Patterson  heavyweight  championship.  Senator  Kefauver  also  reported  that  a 
West  Coast  investigation  had  led  to  the  indictment  and  convictions  of  Carbo,  Frank 
"Blinky"  Palermo  and  others  for  their  extortive  attempt  to  control  the  welterweight 
title. 

The  West  Coast  investigation  led  then  Governor  Edmund  G.  Brown  of  California 
to  state,  on  August  25,  1959,  that  boxing  "smells  to  high  heavens"  and  that  if  Con- 
gress did  not  force  a  cleanup,  he  might  recommend  the  abolition  of  the  sport  in  his 
home  State.5  Governor  Brown  went  on  to  state  that:  "...  I  think  we  are  going  to 
have  to  have  some  national  laws  on  this  subject  because  this  boxing  business  is  ap- 
parently infiltrated  with  racketeers  and  gangsters."  6 

The  Kefauver  hearings  uncovered  a  conspiracy  between  organized  crime  elements 
and  licensed  promoters,  matchmakers  and  managers  to  control  the  major  boxing 
contests  in  the  United  States.  The  Subcommittee  heard  volumes  of  testimony  about 
how  organized  crime  figures,  and  especially  Frank  Carbo,  controlled  the  sport  of 
boxing. 

James  D.  Norris  of  the  International  Boxing  Club  (IBC)  testified  that  Carbo  acted 
as  a  "convincer"  in  lining  up  four  former  boxing  champions,  Jacob  "Jake"  LaMotta, 
Carmen  Basilio,  Willie  Pep  and  Tony  DeMarco  for  IBC  bouts.7  Boxer  Ike  Williams 
testified  that  he  was  boycotted  by  the  International  Managers  Guild  and  unable  to 
obtain  fights  until  he  hired  mobster,  and  Carbo  associate,  Frank  "Blinky"  Palermo 
to  become  his  manager.  Williams  further  testified  that  Palermo  stole  two  of  his 
championship  purses  and  passed  along  several  bribe  offers  to  intentionally  lose 
bouts.  Jake  LaMotta  testified  that  he  accepted  a  large  bribe  to  lose  two  bouts  in 
order  to  obtain  a  promise  of  a  middleweight  championship  bout.8  The  Subcommittee 
also  heard  testimony  indicating  that  former  heavyweight  champion  Sonny  Liston 
was  secretly  managed  by  Carbo,  Palermo  and  St.  Louis  racketeer  John  Vitale.9 

Carbo,  Palermo,  Vitale,  as  well  as  others,  invoked  their  constitutional  privilege 
against  self-incrimination  with  regard  to  all  questions  relating  to  their  boxing  ac- 
tivities. 

Two  years  after  exposing  the  problems  within  the  boxing  industry,  Senator  Ke- 
fauver concluded  in  1963  that  he  had  seen  nothing  to  "indicate  that  professional 
boxing  ever  will,  on  its  own  initiative,  free  itself  from  control  by  racketeers  and 
other  undesirables  ...  if  strong  measures  are  not  taken  to  clean  boxing  then  it 
should  be  abolished."  10  The  strong  measures  referred  to  by  Senator  Kefauver  in- 
cluded legislation  that  he  introduced  in  1961  and  1963  to  provide  a  Federal  role  in 
the  regulation  of  boxing.  These  bills,  S.  1474  (87th  Congress)  and  S.  1182  (88th  Con- 
gress) would  have  established  within  the  Department  of  Justice  a  United  States 
Boxing  Commission  to  set  minimum  standards  for  the  regulation  of  boxing. 

In  describing  his  legislation,  Senator  Kefauver  stated  that  the  primary  purpose  of 
his  legislation  was  to,  "drive  the  racketeers  out  of  boxing.  .  .  ."  X1  The  Kefauver 
legislation  sought  to  do  this  by  establishing  a  nationwide  licensing  system  supported 
with  criminal  sanctions  and  investigative  powers,  including  utilization  of  the  Feder- 
al Bureau  of  Investigation.  The  licensing  entity  envisioned  by  the  Kefauver  legisla- 
tion was  given  wide  latitude  to  determine  who  should  and  should  not  be  licensed  to 
participate  in  boxing.  The  legislation  additionally  contained  a  provision  making  it  a 


4  Subcommittee  On  Antitrust  and  Monopoly,  Professional  Boxing  Hearings,  86th  Congress, 
2nd  Session,  Washington,  D.C.  June  14,  1960,  Statement  of  Senator  Estes  Kefauver  (D-Tenn),  p. 
1. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  2. 

6  Ibid. 

7  Subcommittee  on  Antitrust  and  Monopoly,  Professional  Boxing  Hearings,  86th  Congress,  2nd 
Session,  Washington,  D.C.  December  9,  1960,  at  pp.  549,  589. 

8  Subcommittee  on  Antitrust  and  Monopoly,  Professional  Boxing  Hearings,  86th  Congress,  2nd 
Session,  Washington,  D.C,  June  14,  1960,  p.  6. 

9  Ibid.,  p.  1251. 

10  Kefauver,  Senator  Estes,  National  Boxing  Commission,  Remarks  in  the  Senate,  Congres- 
sional Record  v.  109,  March  29,  1963,  p.  4786. 

1 '  Subcommittee  on  Antitrust  and  Monopoly,  Professional  Boxing  Hearings,  87th  Congress, 
1st  Session,  Washington,  D.C,  May  31,  1961,  p.  1252. 


97 

crime  to  operate  "behind  the  scenes"  as  a  "manager-in-fact"  in  boxing  without  a 
license.12 

Senator  Kefauver's  legislation  did  not  become  law  due  to  his  untimely  death. 
However,  as  a  result  of  the  Kefauver  hearings  in  1964,  Congress  did  enact  P.L.  88- 
316  which  made  bribery  in  a  sporting  contest  a  Federal  crime.13 

Organized    Crime  14    Involvement    Post-Kefauver    Hearings:    How    Have    Things 
Changed? 

While  organized  crime  does  not  appear  to  exercise  the  pervasive  control  of  profes- 
sional boxing  which  was  evident  at  the  time  of  the  last  Senate  investigation,  orga- 
nized crime  members  and  associates  of  organized  crime  remain  heavily  involved  in 
boxing,  primarily  as  managers,  advisors  and  investors.  There  is  additional  evidence 
that  the  greatly  increased  amount  of  purse  money  now  available  to  top  professional 
boxers  make  the  sport  more  attractive  to  organized  crime.  On  the  other  hand,  State 
regulatory  efforts  to  prohibit  organized  crime  infiltration  of  professional  boxing 
have  continued  to  be  as  ineffectual  as  they  were  32  years  ago. 

Crown  Royal  Investigation 

In  July  of  1980,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation's  New  York  Division  initiated 
a  multi-faceted  probe,  known  as  "Crown  Royal,"  into  corruption  in  professional 
boxing.  Although  the  Crown  Royal  investigation  was  ended  without  indictments,  it 
revealed  substantial  evidence  of  corruption  and  organized  crime  involvement  in  the 
boxing  industry. 

The  supervising  case  agent  of  Crown  Royal,  Joseph  Spinelli,15  testified  at  the  Sub- 
committee's August  12,  1992  hearing  that  Crown  Royal  consisted  of  two  undercover 
FBI  agents  and  a  cooperating  witness  (who  also  testified  at  the  Subcommittee's 
August  12,  1992  hearing  under  the  pseudonym  "Bobby,"  and  from  behind  a  screen 
to  protect  his  identity)  who  established  their  own  boxing  company  and  expressed  to 
the  boxing  community  a  desire  to  promote  professional  fights.  The  agents  and  coop- 
erating witness  posed  as  former  drug  dealers  seeking  to  arrange  a  boxing  co-promo- 
tion with  Don  King,  a  leading  boxing  promoter.  The  purported  purpose  of  the  co- 
promotion  was  to  launder  large  amounts  of  drug  money. 

Spinelli  testified  that  early  in  the  investigation,  members  of  organized  crime  rep- 
resented to  the  FBI  undercover  team  that  organized  crime  groups  had  access  to  var- 
ious boxing  promoters  and  could  assist  in  arranging  a  co-promotion.  Evidence  was 
also  uncovered,  Spinelli  testified,  that  an  organized  crime  associate  was  the  recipi- 
ent of  the  Philadelphia  closed-circuit  TV  rights  for  the  1980  Ali-Holmes  fight. 

During  the  course  of  the  investigation,  the  undercover  agents  and  cooperating  wit- 
ness met  with  reputed  members  of  three  different  organized  crime  families,  the 
Genovese,  the  Colombo,  and  the  DeCavalcante  families,  all  representing  that  they 
had  influence  in  professional  boxing.  Former  Colombo  family  capo  regime  ("cap- 
tain") Michael  Franzese  who  was  unwittingly  caught  up  in  the  Crown  Royal  probe 
and  the  cooperating  witness,  "Bobby,"  additionally  testified  that  four  organized 
crime  families  (the  Colombo,  Genovese,  and  DeCavalcante  as  well  as  the  Cleveland 
families)  were  involved  in  arranging  a  meeting  between  the  FBI  undercover  team 
and  promoter  Don  King. 

The  cooperating  witness  testified  that  he  was  informed  by  boxing  public  relations 
man  Chet  Cummings  that  he  would  need  "connections"  to  do  a  co-promotion  of  a 
boxing  event.  Cummings  introduced  the  undercover  team  to  one  of  his  connections, 
the  former  underboss  of  the  Colombo  family,  Sonny  Franzese.16  After  the  undercov- 
er team  informed  Sonny  Franzese  that  they  wanted  to  do  a  co-promotion  with  Don 
King,  Sonny  Franzese  introduced  the  undercover  team  to  his  son  and  Colombo  capo 
regime,  Michael  Franzese,  who,  according  to  Sonny  Franzese,  could  set  up  the  meet- 
ing with  King.  Michael  Franzese  testified  that  he  was  thereby  unwittingly  brought 
into  the  Crown  Royal  investigation. 


12  Ibid. 

13  78  Stat.  203-204. 

14  Organized  crime  in  this  statement  refers  to  the  traditional  organized  crime  groups  known 
as  La  Cosa  Nostra. 

15  Spinelli  retired  from  the  FBI  in  July  of  1985  and  currently  serves  as  the  Inspector  General 
for  the  State  of  New  York. 

16  Michael  Franzese,  Sonny  Franzese's  son,  testified  at  the  Subcommittee's  August  12,  1992 
hearing  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  that  his  father  had  a  longstanding  business  and 
professional  interest  in  boxing,  including  an  ownership  interest  in  several  boxers  such  as  Rocky 
Graziano. 


98 

Michael  Franzese  advised  the  undercover  team  that  he  could  arrange  the  meeting 
but  that  King  was  not  with  his  family  (the  Colombo  family)  but  with  the  DeCaval- 
cante  organized  crime  family.  That  crime  family,  in  turn,  had  to  clear  the  meeting 
with  the  Cleveland  organized  crime  family,  based  in  King's  home  town.  Franzese 
testified  that  each  of  the  four  families  would  also  get  a  share  of  the  boxing  co-pro- 
motion for  having  helped  arrange  the  meeting  with  Don  King.  Having  received  the 
necessary  clearances,  Franzese  testified  that  he  then  "reached  out"  to  the  Reverend 
Al  Sharpton  to  actually  arrange  the  meeting  with  King  because  of  Sharpton's  well- 
known  ties  with  Don  King.  To  set  up  a  meeting  with  Sharpton,  Franzese  testified, 
he  went  through  Genovese  family  soldier  Danny  Pagano  who  was  known  to  have 
close  ties  with  Sharpton.  Pagano,  Franzese  testified,  set  up  a  meeting  with  Sharpton 
and  the  undercover  team  to  discuss  the  co-promotion.17 

During  his  testimony  before  the  Subcommittee,  Spinelli  identified  an  FBI  video- 
tape and  audiotape  of  meetings  between  Sharpton,  Pagano  and  the  undercover  team 
discussing  the  co-promotion.  On  the  audio  tape  Sharpton  is  heard  saying,  "...  the 
only  way  that  I  know  that  I  can  guarantee  Don  [King]  don't  screw  you  if  I  go  in  I 
want  our  people  to  go  in  and  we  be  involved  which  is  why  I  bring  him  [referring  to 
Pagano]  to  you.  ..."  Later  on  the  same  audiotape  Pagano  is  heard  saying,  "Wait, 
wait,  wait  .  .  .  What  you  want  to  do  is  you  want  to  make  the  deal  with  Don  [King] 
but  you  want  somebody  there  so  he  can't  f***  nobody."  The  undercover  agent  then 
answered,  "Yeah,  that's  right,"  with  Pagano  replying,  "It's  all  right  with  me.  I'll  go 
with  you."  18 

The  result  of  all  these  organized  crime  contacts  was  that,  on  January  12,  1983,  the 
undercover  team,  along  with  Franzese  and  Sharpton,  met  with  King.  King  was  not 
only  comfortable  working  with  organized  crime  members,  he  also  expressed  no  con- 
cern with  the  illicit  source  of  the  money  for  this  proposed  deal.  King  agreed  to  do 
the  co-promotion  with  the  undercover  team.19  However,  before  that  could  be  done, 
the  FBI  ended  the  Crown  Royal  investigation,  due  to  potential  liability  risks  in- 
volved in  promoting  a  boxing  match.  The  FBI  closed  the  investigation,  and  no  Fed- 
eral indictments  were  sought. 

Testimony  at  the  Subcommittee's  August  12,  1992  hearing  further  revealed  that 
Crown  Royal  was  not  Don  King's  only  contact  with  organized  crime.  Franzese  testi- 
fied that  he  attended  a  meeting  around  1976  where  Paul  Castellano,  then  boss  of 
the  Gambino  organized  crime  family,  and  Thomas  DiBella,  then  boss  of  the  Colombo 
organized  crime  family,  met  with  King.  Franzese  testified  that  Castellano  and  Di- 
Bella berated  King  because  the  outcome  of  a  fight  was  different  than  the  result 
King  had  promised,  resulting  in  organized  crime  members  having  lost  money  bet- 
ting on  the  fight.  Although  Franzese  did  not  recall  the  particular  fight,  he  specifi- 
cally remembered  that  King  had  claimed  to  be  able  to  determine  the  fight's  out- 
come in  advance  because  he  owned  both  boxers.20 

New  Jersey  Commission  of  Investigation 

In  February  of  1983,  after  the  New  Jersey  State  Police  conducted  a  preliminary 
assessment  of  New  Jersey's  boxing  controls  and  procedures,  then  New  Jersey  Attor- 
ney General  Irwin  I.  Kimmelman  ordered  the  New  Jersey  State  Commission  of  In- 
vestigation (NJSCI  or  the  Commission)  to  conduct  a  more  in-depth  inquiry.  In  addi- 
tion to  finding  serious  problems  with  New  Jersey's  boxing  regulatory  structure,21 


1 7  Testimony  of  Michael  Franzese,  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August 
11  and  12,  1992,  p.  100. 

18  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  Exhibits  No. 
37a  and  37g. 

19  King  invoked  his  Fifth  Amendment  privilege  against  self-incrimination  in  response  to  all 
questions  propounded  to  King  at  a  Subcommittee  deposition,  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in 
Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992,  Exhibit  No.  29. 

20  Crown  Royal  revealed  that  corruption  in  professional  boxing  is  not  limited  to  that  which  is 
orchestrated  by  organized  crime  but  includes  corruption  at  all  levels  of  professional  boxing.  The 
FBI's  cooperating  witness  testified  that  he  personally  delivered  $3,000  to  Bob  Lee,  then  New 
Jersey  Deputy  Boxing  Commissioner,  as  a  pay-off.  This  pay-off  was  to  expedite  the  FBI  under- 
cover team  obtaining  a  boxing  promoter's  license  in  New  Jersey  in  order  to  do  the  co-promotion 
with  Don  King. 

In  response  to  questions  regarding  these  pay-offs  and  to  all  other  questions  propounded  by 
the  Subcommittee  at  its  hearing,  Bob  Lee  invoked  his  Fifth  Amendment  privilege  against  self- 
incrimination.  PSI  Hearings  on  Corruption  in  Professional  Boxing,  August  11  and  12,  1992. 

2 *  Interim  Report  and  Recommendations  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey  Commission  of  Investiga- 
tion on  the  Inadequate  Regulation  of  Boxing  (March  1,  1984). 


99 

the  Commission  found  such  extensive  organized  crime  involvement  in  New  Jersey 
boxing  that  it  issued  a  separate  report  in  1985  addressing  solely  organized  crime  in- 
volvement in  boxing.22 

The  report  concluded  that  the  Commission's  inquiry,  "provides  ample  confirma- 
tion of  underworld  intrusion,"  into  the  New  Jersey  boxing  industry.  The  report  also 
concluded  that  law  enforcement  monitoring  of  organized  crime's  presence  in  boxing 
was  sporadic  at  best.  The  report  found  the  lack  of  law  enforcement  monitoring  espe- 
cially surprising  in  light  of  increased  organized  crime  interest  in  the  sport  since  its 
revival  in  New  Jersey  as  a  casino  industry  promotional  tool.  Although  the  Commis- 
sion's final  report  presented  no  conclusive  proof  that  a  particular  boxer  was  a  "mob 
pawn"  or  that  organized  crime  had  "fixed"  a  given  prize  fight,  it  did  find  that  mem- 
bers and  associates  of  organized  crime  were  involved,  at  all  levels  of  New  Jersey 
boxing. 

The  New  Jersey  report  relates  several  case  studies  of  organized  crime  members 
and  associates  and  their  participation  in  the  New  Jersey  boxing  industry.  Of  those 
addressed  in  the  case  studies,  several  remain  active  in  boxing  today.  One  such  indi- 
vidual is  organized  crime  associate  Alfred  Certissimo,  also  known  as  Al  Certo.  Ac- 
cording to  the  New  Jersey  report,  Certo  owns  a  tailor  shop  and  was  co-owner  of  a 
restaurant,  both  of  which  were  well  known  "mob  hangouts."  The  report  also  estab- 
lished that  Certo  had  ongoing  relationships  with  a  host  of  organized  crime  members 
and  associates  including  Genovese  soldiers  John  DiGilio  (now  deceased),  John 
"Moose"  Marrone,  Sr.  and  Joseph  "Pepe"  LaScala,  among  others.23  (Certo  was 
granted  immunity  before  testifying  before  the  Commission.  Certo's  testimony,  never- 
theless, was  characterized  by  the  Commission  report  as  "evasive.")  At  the  time  of 
the  1985  report,  Certo  was  a  small-time  promoter  and  booking  agent  in  the  North- 
ern New  Jersey  area.  Today,  Certo  is  the  manager  of  record  of  former  World  Boxing 
Council  welterweight  champion  James  "Buddy"  McGirt.  (For  in  depth  discussion  of 
Certo  and  his  relationship  to  McGirt,  see  below). 

Currently  Active  Boxers  With  Significant  Ties  To  Organized  Crime 

Three  currently  active  boxers  have  been  identified  as  having  significant  ties  to 
organized  crime  figures.  The  three  boxers  are  former  World  Boxing  Council  welter- 
weight champion  James  "Buddy"  McGirt,  former  International  Boxing  Federation 
super-middleweight  champion  Iran  Barkley  and  World  Boxing  Association  cruiser- 
weight  champion  Bobby  Czyz.  Each  of  these  boxers  has  denied  that  they  are  know- 
ingly controlled  or  influenced  by  organized  crime  figures.  Whether  these  boxers  are 
unwitting  dupes  or  willing  participants  with  organized  crime  is  unclear.  The  evi- 
dence for  their  connections  with  organized  crime  is,  however,  overwhelming. 

The  three  boxers  discussed  in  this  statement  are  not  the  only  boxers  with  current 
organized  crime  ties.  In  fact,  the  staff  is  aware  of  allegations  involving  several  other 
boxers  who  are  not  mentioned  in  this  statement.  The  three  boxers  discussed  do, 
however,  illustrate  three  forms  of  organized  crime  involvement  in  boxing.  These 
three  case  studies  also  represent  three  examples  of  how  the  current  regulatory 
structure  has  failed  to  keep  organized  crime  out  of  boxing. 

1.  James  "Buddy'1  McGirt 

Subcommittee  staff  learned  from  former  Gambino  crime  family  underboss  Salva- 
tore  "Sammy  the  Bull"  Gravano  that  Gambino  soldier  Joseph  "JoJo"  Corozzo 
"owned  a  piece"  of  former  WBC  welterweight  champion  Buddy  McGirt.  Gravano 
also  asserts  that  Al  Certo,  McGirt's  manager  of  record,  was  an  associate  of  the  Gam- 
bino family.  Gravano  was  aware  of  Corozzo's  relationship  with  McGirt  because  Cor- 
ozzo had  "put  it  on  the  record"  with  Peter  Gotti,  who  is  Corozzo's  capo  regime.  Gra- 
vano claimed  that  he  was  then  told  about  the  relationship  when  Peter  Gotti  report- 
ed it  to  him. 

Gravano  was  also  aware  of  a  disagreement  between  the  Bufalino  family  and  the 
Gambino  family  over  who  owned  McGirt.  Eddie  Sciandra,  the  consigliere  of  the  Bu- 
falino family  had,  according  to  Gravano,  complained  to  Gambino  boss  John  Gotti 
that  the  Bufalinos  owned  McGirt.  Gravano  was  then  told  by  Gotti  to  arrange  a  "sit 
down"  to  settle  the  dispute.  Gotti  decided  the  dispute  in  favor  of  Corozzo  and  the 
Gambino  family  because  Corozzo  had  allegedly  paid  Sciandra  for  his  interest  in 
McGirt.24 


22  Organized  Crime  in  Boxing,  Final  Boxing  Report  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey  Commission  of 
Investigation  (1985). 

23  Ibid.,  p.  17. 

24  Corozzo  repeatedly  exercised  his  Fifth  Amendment  right  when  subpoenaed  to  testify  before 
Subcommittee  staff.  Exhibit  No.  14  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


100 

At  deposition,  McGirt  denied  that  anyone  owned  any  part  of  his  contract  and  said 
that  the  only  individuals  with  any  right  to  a  percentage  of  his  earnings,  to  his 
knowledge,  are  his  managers  Alfred  Certissimo,  also  known  as  Al  Certo,  and  Stuart 
Weiner.25  Certo  also  denied,  at  deposition,  that  anyone,  to  his  knowledge,  owned 
any  part  of  McGirt's  contract  other  than  he  and  Weiner.  Al  Certo  and  Stuart 
Weiner  themselves,  however,  have  extensive  organized  crime  connections. 

Al  Certo  is  characterized  by  at  least  two  law  enforcement  entities  as  a  Genovese 
family  associate.  The  1985  New  Jersey  State  Commission  on  Investigation  report 
concluded  that  Al  Certo  had  extensive  ties  with  organized  crime  figures.26  In  a  dep- 
osition before  Subcommittee  staff,  Certo  acknowledged  familiarity  with  a  large 
number  of  organized  crime  figures  but  denied  that  such  individuals  had  dealings 
with  him  or  Mr.  McGirt.  When  asked  at  deposition  about  Mr.  McGirt's  connections 
with  Gambino  soldier  Corozzo,  for  example,  Certo  stated: 

Certo:  Nah.  He  has  nothing  to  do  with  Buddy  whatsoever. 

Q.  Okay.  Does  he 

Certo:  You've  gotta  understand,  these  people  have  nothing  to  do  with  us, 
nothing  whatsoever. 

Q.  Who  are  "these  people"? 

Certo:  I  mean,  you're  talking  about  guys  like  John  Marrone  [reputed  Gen- 
ovese soldier],  Johnny  DeGilio  [reputed  Genovese  soldier — deceased].  They 
never  had  no — I  just  know  these  guys.  I  never  had  no  dealings  with  them 
and  I'm  not  a  so-called  criminal,  like  you  said  these  guys  were.  All  the 
years  that  I  seen  them,  I  never  seen  these  guys  do  anything.  I  wasn't  a  wit- 
ness to  it.  So  I  can't  talk  about  anybody.27 

McGirt's  deposition  testimony  indicates  that  Certo  takes  a  more  visible  and  active 
role  in  McGirt's  management  than  does  Weiner.  For  example,  McGirt  testified  that 
Certo,  rather  than  Weiner,  takes  charge  of  McGirt's  training,  contract  negotiations 
and  other  boxing  related  meetings.28  In  addition,  although  Certo  and  McGirt  both 
testified  that  Weiner  is  an  equal  co-manager  with  Certo,  only  Certo  is,  or  has  been 
recently,  licensed  as  McGirt's  manager  by  State  boxing  regulators.  At  his  deposition, 
McGirt  was  vague  about  the  specific  management  duties  that  Weiner  performs.29 

Certo  testified  that  Weiner  receives  half  of  the  manager's  share  of  McGirt's  earn- 
ings. Weiner  received  $197,044  of  McGirt's  earnings  between  January  26,  1990  and 
August  14,  1992  according  to  a  staff  analysis  of  Alfred  Certissimo  Inc.  (ACI's)  finan- 
cial records.  (ACI  is  a  company  controlled  by  Certo  and  Weiner  that  holds  all  of 
McGirt's  boxing  earnings.)  But  Weiner  has  effective  control  of  McGirt's  boxing  earn- 
ings through  Weiner's  authority  to  write  checks  on  ACI's  checking  account.  This  ac- 
count receives  and  disburses  all  of  McGirt's  boxing  earnings.  Some  of  the  payments 
to  Weiner  were  by  ACI  checks  written  by  Weiner  himself. 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  with  certainty  who  the  actual  recipient  is  of  a  large 
percentage  of  payments  made  by  ACI  by  Certo  or  Weiner  because  of  questionable 
payment  practices.  The  fact  that  all  of  McGirt's  earnings  go  directly  to  a  corpora- 
tion, ACI,  which  is  controlled  by  Certo  and  Weiner,  is  questionable  itself.  It  circum- 
vents the  intent  of  State  regulations  requiring  that  the  boxer  be  paid  directly  by  the 
promoter  in  the  presence  of  a  State  boxing  regulator  to  insure  that  the  boxer  actual- 
ly receive  his  full  purse.30 

One  questionable  pattern  and  practice  involves  third  party  endorser  transactions. 
A  large  number  of  ACI  checks  are  so-called  "third  party  endorser"  checks.  This 
practice  involves  ACI,  through  Weiner  or  Certo,  writing  a  check  to  someone,  then 
that  person's  endorsement  is  written  on  the  back  of  the  check  and  the  check  is 
given  back  to  Weiner  or  Certo  who  endorse  the  check  again,  becoming  the  third 
party  endorser.  In  an  analysis  of  ACI's  checks  and  bank  statements,  staff  found  that 
very  few  such  checks  appear  to  be  redeposited  into  ACI's  account,  suggesting  that 
the  third  party  endorsed  checks  are  being  converted  into  cash.  Certo  explained  the 
process  at  his  deposition  as  follows:  "he  (Weiner)  might  put  Buddy  McGirt  on  there 


25  McGirt  deposition,  p.  74-75.  Exhibit  No.  13  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

26  Organized  Crime  in  Boxing,  Final  Boxing  Report  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey  Commission  of 
Investigation  (1985),  p.  17. 

27  Certissimo  deposition,  p.  137.  Exhibit  No.  12  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

28  McGirt  deposition,  pp.  28-29.  Exhibit  No.  13  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

29  Ibid.,  pp.  26-28. 

30  See  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission  rule  467.142(31,  New  York  State  Athletic  Commis- 
sion rule  208.19.  Exhibit  No.  27  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


101 

(the  check)  and  sign  the  back  and  go  to  the  bank  and  cash  it."  31  Certo  further  testi- 
fied that  he  also  takes  cash  payment  by  the  same  method. :ia  During  the  period  Jan- 
uary 1990  through  September  1992  over  10  percent  of  all  checks  totalling  in  excess 
of  $158,000  were  handled  in  this  manner. 

A  second  questionable  pattern  involves  the  practice  of  writing  two  checks  to  the 
same  payee  on  the  same  day.  On  eight  separate  occasions,  Stuart  Weiner  wrote  him- 
self two  checks  for  significant  amounts  of  money  on  the  same  day.  On  one  day, 
Weiner  wrote  three  separate  checks  to  himself. 

ACI's  questionable  accounting  practices  raise  questions  regarding  exactly  how  the 
money  McGirt  earns  is  distributed.  The  complexity  of  the  flow  of  funds  for  McGirt's 
fights  is  illustrated  by  analyzing  the  revenue  for  the  McGirt-Simon  Brown  WBC 
welterweight  championship  fight,  which  was  held  on  November  29,  1991,  in  Las 
Vegas.33 

This  fight  was  a  co-promotion  of  Don  King  Productions,  Inc.  (DKP),  which  had  the 
promotional  rights  to  Simon  Brown,  and  MSG  Boxing,  as  McGirt's  promoter.  DKP 
paid  MSG  Boxing  $800,000  for  the  fight  from  which  MSG  Boxing  paid  McGirt  and 
took  its  promotional  share,  which  was  $100,000.34 

MSG  Boxing  paid  McGirt  $700,000,  according  to  an  agreement  signed  in  New 
York  (the  New  York  contract)  on  November  26,  1991,  by  Bob  Goodman  (representing 
MSG  Boxing),  McGirt  and  Certo.35  According  to  this  agreement,  McGirt  was  to  re- 
ceive $625,000  plus  $75,000  in  training  expenses  for  the  Brown  fight.  The  New  York 
contract  included  options  on  five  future  McGirt  fights  by  MSG.  This  agreement  is  at 
odds  with  the  bout  contract  filed  with  the  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission  (the 
Nevada  contract),  which  called  for  McGirt  to  receive  only  $625,000  for  the  Brown 
fight  and  which  contained  no  options  for  future  fights.36 

All  of  the  money  due  McGirt  for  the  Brown  fight  was  paid  to  ACI,  pursuant  to  a 
letter  from  McGirt  (on  MSG  Boxing  letterhead)  to  the  Nevada  Athletic  Commission 
requesting  that  payment  be  made  in  that  manner.37  MSG  Boxing  paid  checks  in  the 
amount  of  $18,750  to  the  WBC  on  November  26,  1991,  (sanctioning  fee)  and  $566,250 
and  $40,000  to  ACI  on  November  27,  1991.  These  checks  totaled  $625,000. 

However,  that  does  not  appear  to  be  the  case.  Upon  investigating  this  matter  fur- 
ther, MSG  Boxing  provided  the  Subcommittee  with  a  different  copy  of  its  $40,000 
check  to  ACI.38  This  copy  was  marked  void  across  the  front  and  the  back  was  signed 
"Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc."  and  had  what  appears  to  be  the  incomplete  signature  of 
Stuart  Weiner.  According  to  MSG  Boxing,  the  Mirage  Hotel  would  not  cash  for 
Weiner  the  corporate  check  payable  to  ACI.  As  a  result,  that  check  was  never  nego- 
tiated. To  pay  Weiner  the  $40,000  cash,  Goodman  asked  Don  King  to  pay  MSG  Box- 
ing's co-promotion  fee  in  two  checks,  with  one  in  the  amount  of  $40,000.  Goodman 
then  cashed  that  check  at  the  Mirage  Hotel  and  gave  Weiner  $40,000  cash. 

In  a  recent  indictment  filed  by  the  District  Attorney  for  New  York  County, 
Weiner  was  named  as  a  member  of  the  Joseph  Corozzo  crew  of  the  Gambino  orga- 
nized crime  family.39  The  indictment  alleges  that  the  Corozzo  crew  is  engaged  in 


31  Certissimo  deposition,  p.  113.  Exhibit  No.  12  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

32  Ibid.,  pp.  113-114. 

33  See  "Flow  of  Funds"  chart,  prepared  by  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations, 
Exhibit  No.  4  appears  on  page  164. 

34  MSG  Boxing's  promotional  fee  included  a  $50,000  advance  from  McGirt  to  MSG  Boxing, 
which  was  subsequently  repaid  by  MSG  Boxing  in  two  $25,000  installments  in  the  form  of 
checks  to  ACI  on  February  20,  1992,  and  March  13,  1992.  Exhibits  No.  33f  and  33g  are  retained 
in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

35  Bout  Agreement  With  Options,  dated  November  26,  1991,  signed  by  Bob  Goodman,  Buddy 
McGirt  and  Al  Certo,  Exhibit  No.  38  appears  on  page  259. 

36  Nevada  Athletic  Commission  Articles  of  Agreement,  November  22,  1991,  signed  by  Bob 
Goodman,  Buddy  McGirt  and  Al  Certo.  For  a  discussion  of  how  these  contracts  violate  various 
Nevada  Athletic  Commission  rules,  see  Staff  Report:  "Corruption  in  professional  Boxing — Inad- 
equate State  Regulation,"  March  10,  1993,  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations.  Exhibit 
No.  21d  appears  on  page  254. 

37  Letter  dated  November  26,  1991,  from  Buddy  McGirt  to  Chuck  Minker.  Nevada  rules  allow 
a  boxer  to  assign  his  share  of  the  purse  by  filing  a  written  request  with  the  commission  at  least 
five  days  prior  to  the  fight.  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission  rule  467.137(5).  However,  allow- 
ing a  boxer  to  assign  his  purse  to  his  manager's  company  appears  to  violate  the  policy  behind 
the  Nevada  rules.  Exhibit  No.  21c  appears  on  page  253. 

38  Check  No.  505394,  dated  11/27/91,  in  the  amount  of  $40,000  from  MSG  Corporation  to  ACI, 
marked  "void."  Exhibit  No.  33h  appears  on  page  257.  The  original  copy  of  this  check  provided  to 
the  Subcommittee  by  MSG  Boxing  was  a  copy  made  when  the  check  was  initially  cut  and  filed 
routinely.  Exhibit  No.  33e  appears  on  page  256. 

39  State  of  New  York  v.  Joseph  Corozzo  et  al.,  Indictment  No.  11458-92  (New  York  Supreme 
Court),  November  18,  1992.  (Exhibit  to  Corozzo  deposition,  Exhibit  No.  14  is  retained  in  the  files 
of  the  Subcommittee.) 


102 

illegal  gambling,  loan  sharking  and  fencing  of  stolen  goods,  among  other  things. 
McGirt  testified  that  he  was  aware  that  Weiner  and  Corozzo  were  friends  and  that 
he  (McGirt)  had  been  introduced  to  Corozzo  by  Weiner.40  However,  McGirt  denied 
any  knowledge  of  organized  crime  activities  or  involvement  on  the  part  of  Corozzo 
or  Weiner.  McGirt  did  testify  that  Weiner  had  asked  him  to  attend  the  trial  of  Gam- 
bino  boss  John  Gotti.  McGirt  did,  in  fact,  attend  the  Gotti  trial,  and  Gotti  greeted 
him  at  one  point  when  Gotti  was  leaving  the  courtroom.  When  asked  why  Weiner 
would  attend  the  trial  of  John  Gotti,  McGirt  replied,  "I  guess  they're  boyhood 
friends."  41 

2.  Iran  Barkley 

Former  International  Boxing  Federation  (IBF)  super-middleweight  champion,  Iran 
Barkley,  testified  at  deposition  that  he  currently  does  not  have  a  manager  but  does 
have  "advisors."  Barkley  testified  that  one  of  his  advisors  is  Eddie  Mustafa  Moham- 
med who  serves  as  his  trainer  and  receives  the  customary  10  percent  of  Barkley's 
earnings.  The  other  advisor  is  Lenny  Minuto  who  has  been  identified  as  a  Luchese 
crime  family  associate.42  The  role  played  by  Minuto  as  well  as  his  compensation  is 
less  well-defined. 

When  asked  at  his  deposition  about  Minuto's  role  and  compensation,  Barkley  was 
vague.  For  example,  at  one  point  Barkley  claimed  that  Minuto  was  not  paid  to  be 
his  advisor,  while  at  another  point  Barkley  stated  that  Minuto  would  be  paid 
$100,000  in  connection  with  Barkley's  February  title  defense  against  James 
Toney.43  Stan  Hoffman,  who  has  served  as  an  advisor  to  both  Minuto  and  Barkley 
testified,  however,  that  he  was  under  the  impression  that  Minuto  received  20  per- 
cent of  Barkley's  purse.44  Minuto's  role  as  an  advisor  to  Barkley  ranges  from  acting 
as  an  investment  advisor  to  negotiating  contracts  for  Barkley.45  Minuto's  role  as  a 
boxing  adviser  is,  however,  questionable  considering  that  long-time  boxing  people 
such  as  Stan  Hoffman  do  not  consider  Minuto  to  be  knowledgable  about  boxing.  At 
his  deposition  before  Subcommittee  staff,  Hoffman  stated,  "...  because  he  [Minuto] 
really  knew  nothing  about  boxing  that  I  could  tell.  .  .  ,46  Barkley  also  does  not 
appear  to  consider  Minuto  knowledgable  about  boxing.  For  example,  when  asked 
what  Minuto  actually  did  as  his  advisor,  Barkley  testified,  "[l]ike  when  we  have 
meetings  with  Bob  Arum  (boxing  promoter)  or  whatever,  you  know.  I  call  him 
[Minuto]  and  Mustafa  to  sit  in  with  me,  and  they  sit  in,  and  being  that  Mustafa 
know  the  game  and  I  know  the  game,  and  Lenny  [Minuto],  he's  learning,  you  know, 
from  what  we've  showed  him  and  he  sits  in  with  us  and  we  talk.  .  .  ."  47 

The  Minuto-Barkley  relationship  is  illustrative  of  how  organized  crime  figures  are 
involved  in  the  boxing  industry  as  unlicensed  paid  "advisors"  to  boxers.  For  exam- 
ple, boxing  a  promoter  Bob  Arum  told  staff  that  he  had  to  pay  Minuto  $125,000,  in 
addition  to  Barkley's  purse,  in  order  to  get  Barkley  to  agree  to  fight  James  Toney. 
The  practice  of  labeling  oneself  an  advisor  rather  than  a  manager  or  co-manager 
allows  one  to  avoid  State  licensure,  yet  be  active  in  the  business  of  boxing.  The  role 
of  an  advisor  is  often,  however,  indistinguishable  from  that  of  a  manager.  So-called 
advisors  often  negotiate  on  behalf  of  boxers  and  assure  that  boxers  prepare  them- 
selves for  fights,  all  of  which  qualify  one  as  a  manager  under  most  State  boxing 
regulations.  For  example,  the  New  York  State  Boxing  Regulations  Part  205.1(g) 
define  a  manager  as  ".  .  .  any  person,  including  an  'agent,'  who  directly  or  indirect- 
ly, directs  or  administers  the  affairs  of  any  boxer.  .  .  ."  New  Jersey  defines  a  man- 
ager as  anyone  who  "directs  or  controls  the  activities  of  a  professional  boxer" 
(NJAC  13:46-1.1)  or  as  anyone  entitled  to  10  percent  or  more  of  a  boxer's  earnings 
(NJAC  13:46-1.1).  Most  so-called  "advisors,"  including  Minuto,  would  fit  at  least  one 
of  the  above  definitions  of  a  manager.  Nevertheless,  they  are  not  licensed,  and 
States  do  not  enforce  the  licensure  requirement. 


40  McGirt  deposition,  p.  6.  Exhibit  No.  13  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

41  Ibid.,  p.  8. 

42  According  to  the  deposition  testimony  of  boxing  advisor  Stan  Hoffman,  Lenny  Minuto  was 
also  involved  with  the  career  of  now-retired  professional  boxer  Dennis  Milton  (Hoffman  deposi- 
tion at  p.37);  Subcommittee  staff  has  found  no  record  of  Minuto  being  licensed  as  a  manager  of 
Milton.  Staff  did  find  that  Minuto's  son,  Lenny  Minuto,  Jr.,  was  licensed  in  New  Jersey  as 
Dennis  Milton's  manager.  Lenny  Minuto  also  has  a  cousin  named  Marco  Minuto  who  has  man- 
aged several  professional  boxers  and  was  licensed  in  New  York  until  1991.  Exhibit  No.  16  is 
retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

43  Barkley  deposition,  p.  44.  Exhibit  No.  17  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

44  Hoffman  deposition,  p.  44.  Exhibit  No.  16  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

45  Barkley  deposition,  pp.  28,  41.  Exhibit  No.  17  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

46  Hoffman  deposition,  p.  39.  Exhibit  No.  16  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

47  Barkley  deposition,  p.  42.  Exhibit  No.  17  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


103 

3.  Bobby  Czyz 

Bobby  Czyz  is  the  current  World  Boxing  Association  cruiserweight  champion.  Czyz 
testified  at  the  Subcommittee's  August  11,  1992  hearing  that  during  his  early  profes- 
sional boxing  career,  his  father  negotiated  a  10-year  earnings  agreement  with 
Andrew  Licari  and  Andrew  Dembrowski  whereby  Czyz  received  a  $300,000  advance 
against  a  percentage  of  his  future  earnings.  According  to  Czyz,  this  arrangement 
gave  him  the  resources  to  dedicate  himself  to  boxing  and  gave  his  investors  the 
right,  for  10  years,  to  26  percent  of  Czyz'  boxing  earnings. 

Czyz  testified  that,  although  the  terms  of  his  contract  with  Licari  and  Dem- 
browski had  expired,  he  had  voluntarily  extended  the  contract  to  account  for  sever- 
al years  of  boxing  inactivity  on  his  part.  Licari  testified  at  a  Subcommittee  deposi- 
tion that  Czyz  had  voluntarily  extended  the  agreement  on  two  separate  occasions.48 
Licari  claimed  that  Czyz  had  agreed  to  do  this  because  he  and  his  partner,  Dem- 
browski, had  not  gotten  their  initial  investment  back.  According  to  Licari,  the 
agreement  is  in  effect  indefinitely  until  they  get  their  investment  back.49  When 
Czyz  was  asked  whether  Licari  exercised  any  control  over  his  career,  Czyz  answered, 
"[absolutely  zero.  He  [Licari]  has  been  a  good  friend  and  nothing  more,  as  well  as  a 
business  associate  in  that  regard." 

Czyz  denied  any  knowledge  of  Licari's  or  Dembrowski's  ties  to  organized  crime. 
Czyz  was  aware,  however,  of  the  1985  New  Jersey  Commission  on  Investigation's 
Report  that  alleged  that  Licari  was  an  associate  of  the  Luchese  crime  family.  More- 
over, a  sworn  statement  submitted  to  the  Subcommittee  by  former  acting  boss  of  the 
Luchese  family,  Alfonse  D'Arco,  states  as  follows,  "I  am  familiar  with  Andrew 
Licari  of  Northern  New  Jersey.  Licari  is  a  member  of  the  Luchese  family  and  was 
inducted  into  the  family  sometime  around  1990.  Licari  was  brought  in  by  a  relative 
of  Licari's  and  Luchese  member,  Leonard  Pizzolatto.  Licari  is  involved  in  loan 
sharking  and  several  other  businesses."  50  In  his  Subcommittee  deposition,  Licari 
acknowledged  that,  in  addition  to  his  original  investment  in  Bobby  Czyz's  contract, 
he  made  interest-free  loans  to  Czyz.  A  letter  submitted  to  the  Subcommittee  by  Li- 
cari's attorney  indicates  that  Licari  and  Dembrowski  have  loaned  Czyz  $80,000  since 
1981  and  $50,000  of  that  amount  is  still  owed.  Licari  testified  at  his  deposition  that 
it  was  not  customary  for  him  or  his  business  to  loan  money  to  individuals.51 

D'Arco  also  testified  at  the  1992  trial  of  Luchese  boss  Vittoria  Amuso  that  Licari 
was  a  member  of  the  Accetturo  crew  of  the  Luchese  family.  At  his  Subcommittee 
deposition,  Licari  acknowledged  knowing  the  individuals  alleged  to  comprise  the  Ac- 
cetturo crew,  but  denied  any  personal  knowledge  of  the  crew  or  that  the  alleged 
members  of  the  crew  were  affiliated  in  any  way  with  organized  crime.52 

Although  ownership  of  a  percentage  of  a  boxer's  contract,  which  establishes  the 
right  to  some  percentage  of  the  boxer's  future  earnings,  is  a  common  practice,  such 
agreements  are  rarely  public  knowledge  or  recorded  with  boxing  regulators. 

In  many  cases,  these  practices  circumvent  the  licensing  requirements  of  State 
boxing  regulators.  These  licensing  regulations  require  individuals  involved  in  the 
business  of  boxing  such  as  trainers  and  managers,  to  be  licensed  with  the  State 
boxing  commission.  Licensing,  in  turn,  allows  a  State  to  control  who  is  involved  in 
the  sport  and  to  exclude  those  who,  after  being  licensed,  are  a  detriment  to  the 
sport.  A  boxing  commission  has  little  control  or  leverage  over  individuals  it  does  not 
license.  But  licensing  is  only  effective  if  the  licensing  entity  makes  at  least  a  mini- 
mal inquiry  into  the  background  of  the  individual  being  licensed.  As  illustrated  in 
the  following  section  on  the  regulatory  structure  of  boxing,  most  State  regulators  do 
not  make  even  minimal  inquiries. 

Inadequate  Regulation 

Organized  crime's  presence  in  the  boxing  industry  and  its  attendant  corrupting 
effect  has  long  been  suspected.  It  has  been  part  of  the  public  record  since  the  Ke- 
fauver  hearings  in  the  early  1960s  and  most  recently  with  the  hearings  before  this 
Subcommittee.  The  continued  presence  of  organized  crime  in  the  boxing  industry  is 
most  discouraging  because  the  tools  exist  to  eliminate  it.  First,  law  enforcement  has 
become  extremely  capable  at  identifying  and  combatting  organized  crime  members 
and  associates.  Secondly,  the  major  boxing  States  have  the  laws  and  regulations  nec- 
essary to  exclude  organized  crime  members  and  associates  from  the  boxing  industry. 
The  regulations,  however,  are  not  being  enforced. 


48  Licari  deposition,  pp.  33,  39.  Exhibit  No.  47  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

49  Ibid.,  pp.  38-39. 

50  Exhibit  No.  31  appears  on  page  255. 

51  Licari  deposition  at  pp.  53-54.  Exhibit  No.  47  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

52  Ibid.,  pp.  62-87. 


104 

The  clear  intent  of  State  licensure  rules  and  regulations  is  that  those  who  partici- 
pate in  boxing  in  any  significant  way,  should  be  licensed  by  the  regulatory  body  at 
issue.  Licensure  in  boxing,  as  with  any  profession  or  activity,  is  the  most  basic  way 
to  police  a  profession  or  activity.  Licensure  is,  in  addition,  the  means  to  exclude 
those  who  would  be  a  detriment  to  a  profession  or  activity.  Indeed,  one  of  the  pri- 
mary purposes  of  the  Kefauver  legislation,  introduced  over  30  years  ago,  was  to, 
"drive  the  racketeers  out  of  boxing.  .  .  ."  53  To  accomplish  this  purpose,  the  licens- 
ing entity  envisioned  by  the  Kefauver  legislation  would  have  been  given  wide  lati- 
tude to  determine  who  should  and  should  not  be  licensed  to  participate  in  boxing. 
The  legislation  additionally  contained  a  provision  making  it  a  crime  to  operate 
"behind  the  scenes"  as  a  "manager-in-fact"  in  boxing  without  a  license.54 

States  today  generally  have  wide  latitude  concerning  their  ability  to  deny  or 
revoke  a  license  to  participate  in  boxing.  The  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission 
has  a  regulation  allowing  it  to  deny  or  revoke  a  license  if  the  applicant  or  licensee: 
Has  been  convicted  of  a  felony;  engages  in  illegal  bookmaking;  engages  in  illegal 
gambling;  or  "[i]s  a  reputed  underworld  character."  55  In  the  State  of  New  Jersey, 
the  State  Athletic  Control  Board  has  the  power  to  deny  or  revoke  the  license  of  a 
boxing  manager  or  promoter  if  the  applicant  or  licensee  is  convicted  of  a  "crime  of 
moral  turpitude  or  any  other  offense  which  indicates  that  licensure  would  be  inimi- 
cal to  the  conduct  of  the  sport  of  boxing.  .  .  ."  56  In  New  York  State,  the  State  Ath- 
letic Commission  can  deny  a  license  to  participate  in  boxing  based  solely  on  the 
character  and  general  fitness  of  an  applicant.57  New  York  also  has  a  regulation  al- 
lowing revocation  of  a  boxing  license  if  a  licensee  is  guilty  of  an  act  detrimental  to 
boxing  or  associates  or  consorts  with  persons  who  have  been  convicted  of  a  crime  or 
who  are  "bookmakers,  gamblers  or  persons  of  similar  pursuits.  .  .  ."  58 

When  asked  at  a  Subcommittee  deposition  whether  the  Nevada  Athletic  Commis- 
sion had  ever,  under  its  rule  467.082  denied  a  license  to  a  "reputed  underworld 
character,"  the  chairman  of  the  Nevada  Athletic  Commission  Elias  Ghanem,  re- 
plied, "I  don't  know  if  any  reputed  underworld  character  has  ever  applied  for  a  li- 
cense." 59  Marc  Ratner,  the  Commission's  chief  inspector,  testified  at  the  same  depo- 
sition that  although  the  Commission  application  asks  if  an  applicant  has  been  ar- 
rested for  a  felony,  the  Commission  does  not  do  background  checks  nor  does  it  con- 
tact any  law  enforcement  agencies  about  licensure  applicants.  When  asked  why  the 
Commission  did  not  do  background  checks,  Ratner  testified  -  that  the  Commission 
does  not  have  the  staff  to  do  so. 

The  testimony  of  New  Jersey  State  Athletic  Commissioner  Larry  Hazzard  indi- 
cates that  New  Jersey,  like  Nevada,  does  not  attempt  to  enforce  its  licensure  laws 
and  regulations.  At  the  Subcommittee's  August  11,  1992  hearing,  Hazzard  was  ques- 
tioned about  the  licensure  of  Alfred  Certissimo,  also  known  as  Al  Certo.  The  1985 
New  Jersey  Commission  of  Investigation  Report  on  Organized  Crime  in  Boxing 
stated,  "Al  Certo's  admitted  close  association  with  organized  crime  figures  dictate 
that  he  be  barred  from  licensure  and,  in  fact,  from  any  professional  role  in  the 
sport."  60 

Hazzard  testified  that  he  was  familiar  with  Certo  and  with  the  1985  Report  but 
had,  nevertheless,  repeatedly  licensed  Certo  to  participate  in  New  Jersey  boxing. 
When  asked  why  Certo  had  repeatedly  been  licensed  in  New  Jersey  in  light  of  the 
1985  Report,  Hazzard  testified,  "we  do  not  feel  that,  based  on  a  report  that  was  sub- 
mitted by  a  State  Commission  of  Investigation  [we]  should  deny  Mr.  Certo  of  his 
right  to  participate  in  the  sport  of  boxing."  Hazzard  further  testified  that  he  did  not 
conduct  background  checks  of  licensure  applicants  because  he  did  not  have  the  re- 
sources to  do  so.  Hazzard  did  acknowledge  that  he  could  have  checked  with  the 
Commission  of  Investigation  regarding  its  findings. 

The  Kefauver  hearings  confirmed  the  long  held  belief  that  whatever  organized 
crime  touches  it  corrupts.  Those  hearings  additionally  confirmed  that,  as  with  any 
industry,  once  organized  crime's  corrupting  influence  takes  hold,  it  is  difficult  to 
shake  it  off. 


53  Subcommittee  on  Anititrust  and  Monopoly,  Professional  Boxing  Hearings,  87th  Congress, 
1st  Session,  Washington,  D.C.  May  31,  1961,  p.  1252. 

54  Ibid. 

55  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission  rule  467.082. 

56  New  Jersey  Administrative  Code  13:46-6.18  and  18.8. 

57  Unconsolidated  Laws,  Title  25  Sports,  Chapter  1— Boxing  and  Wrestling,  §  8912(i). 

58  Ibid.,  at  §  8917(b). 

59  Ghanem  deposition,  p.  23.  Exhibit  No.  11  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 

60  Organized  Crime  in  Boxing,  Final  Boxing  Report  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey  Commission  on 
Investigation  (1985),  p.  17. 


105 

At  the  Subcommittee's  hearing  on  August  12,  1992,  Michael  Franzese,  former 
capo  in  the  Colombo  organized  crime  family,  testified  as  to  some  of  the  detrimental 
effects  of  organized  crime  involvement  in  professional  boxing.  According  to  Fran- 
zese, former  middleweight  champion,  Vito  Antuofermo,  was  owned  by  Andrew 
Russo,  a  capo  and  former  acting  boss  of  the  Colombo  family.  As  is  the  case  with 
Licari,  Weiner,  Corozzo  and  Minuto,  however,  Russo  was  not  listed  as  Antuofermo's 
manager  of  record.  Franzese  testified  that  it  was  well  known  in  boxing  circles  that 
Russo  controlled  Antuofermo.  This  enabled  Franzese  and  other  Colombo  family 
members  to  know  in  advance  the  likely  outcome  of  many  of  Antuofermo's  fights  so 
that  organized  crime  could  place  their  bets  accordingly,  with  individuals  wagering 
as  much  as  $50,000-$100,000  on  particular  fights.  Interestingly,  Franzese  testified 
that,  when  Antuofermo  fought  Marvin  Hagler  for  the  middleweight  title,  organized 
crime  associates  were  told  that  the  outcome  of  the  fight  was  not  pre-determined  and 
that  they  were  "on  their  own"  with  any  bets  they  made  on  that  fight. 

In  addition  to  the  inside  information  gained  from  owning  or  being  associated  with 
a  boxer,  Franzese  further  testified  about  how  organized  crime  uses  this  connection 
to  manipulate  boxers  to  benefit  the  interests  of  organized  crime.  Often  this  occurs  at 
the  expense  of  the  best  interests  of  the  boxer  and  professional  boxing.  Franzese  pro- 
vided such  an  example  in  the  case  of  Davey  Moore,  a  middleweight  in  whom  Fran- 
zese testified  that  he  owned  an  8  percent  interest. 

On  June  16,  1983,  Moore  was  scheduled  to  fight  Roberto  Duran.  Moore,  however, 
was  not  in  the  best  shape  and  wanted  to  postpone  the  bout.  Franzese  testified  that 
he  and  the  other  people  who  owned  Moore,  knew  that  their  fighter,  in  that  physical 
condition,  could  not  beat  Duran  and  that  betting  against  their  own  boxer  would  be 
almost  a  sure  thing.  Thus,  they  decided  to  hold  the  fight  as  scheduled.  Duran  won 
and  so  did  organized  crime,  by  betting  heavily  against  their  own  boxer. 

Recent  press  reports  have  questioned  Buddy  McGirt's  physical  condition  during 
his  recent  title  defense  on  March  6,  1993.  It  was  well  publicized  that  McGirt  was 
suffering  shoulder  problems  prior  to  the  March  6th  fight,  and  he  underwent  major 
shoulder  surgery  after  the  fight.  Certo  is  alleged  in  one  press  report  to  have  dissuad- 
ed McGirt  from  seeing  a  private  physician  about  his  shoulder  prior  to  the  fight. 
Certo  is  quoted  as  saying,  "Before  the  fight  I  had  the  injury.  I  still  got  the  injury 
and  a  million  bucks.61 

Conclusion 

The  Subcommittee's  investigation  has  shown  that  organized  crime  is  currently  in- 
volved in  the  boxing  industry.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  this  situation  will 
change.  In  fact,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  organized  crime  involvement  i;i 
the  boxing  industry  will  increase.  The  business  of  boxing  is  ideally  suited  for  orga- 
nized crime  for  two  primary  reasons.  Boxing  involves  large  sums  of  money,  and  it  is 
ineffectively  regulated. 

Boxing's  current  regulatory  structure  has  clearly  failed  to  prevent  organized 
crime  involvement  in  boxing.  Organized  crime  members  and  associates  are  allowed 
to  manage,  advise  and  invest  in  professional  boxers.  These  same  members  and  asso- 
ciates are  either  licensed  by  the  State  boxing  commissions  or  allowed  to  avoid  State 
licensure.  The  State  commissions  cite  lack  of  resources  as  the  reason  they  do  not 
inquire  into  the  background  of  their  licensure  applicants.  Lack  of  resources,  howev- 
er, does  not  explain  why  the  New  Jersey  Athletic  Commission  continued  to  license 
Al  Certo  after  the  New  Jersey  Commission  of  Investigations  concluded  that  Certo 
had  so  many  organized  connections  he  should  not  be  licensed.  Lack  of  resources  also 
does  not  explain  why  the  New  York  Athletic  Commission  recently  re-licensed  pro- 
moter Don  King  after  this  Subcommittee  heard  testimony  about  his  extensive  orga- 
nized crime  connections. 

One  can  only  conclude,  as  did  Senator  Kefauver  32  years  ago,  that  the  States  are 
unable  to  adequately  regulate  the  business  and  sport  of  boxing.  In  addition,  boxing 
has  made  no  effort  to  regulate  itself.  The  alternatives  are  to  either  abolish  the  short 
or  provide  some  sort  of  federal  oversight.  Abolishing  boxing  would  probably  be  un- 
workable and  would  be  unf  air  to  the  thousands  of  young  men  that  the  sport  has 
benefitted. 

With  regard  to  organized  crime,  one  of  the  strongest  endorsements  for  a  federal 
role  in  boxing  came  from  former  Colombo  capo  Michael  Franzese  who  testified  that 
Federal  involvement  in  the  boxing  is,  "likely  to  result  in  less  organized  crime  in- 
volvement in  the  sport."  Franzese  explained  that  due  to  the  pressure  that  the  Fed- 
eral Government  has  placed  on  organized  crime,  organized  crime  is  becoming  in- 


6 '  Exhibit  No.  43  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


106 

creasingly  more  reluctant  to  get  involved  in  activities  monitored  by  the  Federal 
Government. 

Senator  Cohen.  The  first  question  I  would  ask  you  is,  in  spite  of 
the  testimony  we  had  last  fall  that  the  best  way  to  rid  organized 
crime  of  involvement  in  boxing  is  to  have  strong  Federal  oversight, 
we  just  had  someone  who  is  actively  involved  in  organized  crime 
and  the  boxing  profession,  indicated  that  would  make  very  little 
difference  as  long  as  the  money  is  there.  Do  you  have  any  response 
to  that? 

Mr.  Lord.  Well,  Senator,  according  to  what  we  have  heard 
during  the  course  of  this  investigation,  I  would  have  to  disagree. 
The  Federal  Government  did  a  very  good  job  of  capturing  Mr.  Gra- 
vano,  and  in  general  the  Federal  Government  has  done  a  good  job 
prosecuting  and  investigating  organized  crime,  so  I  think  they 
would  continue  to  do  so  with  regard  to  the  boxing  industry. 

Senator  Cohen.  OK.  Perhaps  you  could  tell  us  a  bit  more  about 
the  function  of  State  licensing  boards  and  their  relationship  to 
boxing  participants  and  licensed  advisors  and  unlicensed  advisors. 

Mr.  Lord.  As  far  as  unlicensed  advisors  go,  there  is  no  relation- 
ship between  them  and  the  State  regulatory  agencies  because  they 
totally  circumvent  the  licensing  process.  They  are  not  licensed; 
they  do  not  put  in  applications  for  a  license.  And  as  far  as  we  can 
tell,  the  boxing  commissions  do  not  go  after  them,  don't  try  to  force 
them  to  be  licensed,  and  don't  try  to  exclude  them  from  boxing  if 
they  are  in  fact  participating  in  the  sport. 

Senator  Cohen.  Well,  do  they  perform  any  functions  that  would 
otherwise  bring  them  within  the  scope  of  State  regulation? 

Mr.  Lord.  Yes,  Senator,  in  many  cases,  they  do.  I  think  the  ex- 
amples on  our  chart — Lenny  Minuto  as  one — are  good  ones.  If  he 
in  fact  receives  10  percent  of  Iran  Barkley's  boxing  earnings,  then 
he  is  a  manager  under  the  New  Jersey  definition  of  a  manager — 
anyone  who  receives  10  percent  or  more  of  a  boxer's  earnings — and 
he  would  therefore  have  to  be  licensed  as  a  manager  in  that  State. 
Other  States  have  very  broad  definitions  of  a  manager — anyone 
who  helps  direct  the  career  of  the  boxer.  He  certainly,  according  to 
the  deposition  of  Mr.  Barkley,  is  helping  to  direct  his  career  and 
would  have  to  be  licensed  as  a  manager  in  that  capacity  also. 

Senator  Cohen.  Should  we  have  a  uniform  definition  of  what 
constitutes  an  advisor? 

Mr.  Lord.  Yes,  Senator,  or  what  constitutes  a  manager,  so  it 
would  encompass  all  of  these  unlicensed  advisors. 

Senator  Cohen.  Mr.  Levin,  I  think  the  staff  statement  indicates 
there  is  evidence  that  Mr.  Lenny  Minuto  may  have  received  as 
much  as  $225,000  in  connection  with  Mr.  Barkley's  last  fight.  Do 
you  want  to  explain  the  evidence  and  how  you  arrived  at  that 
figure? 

Mr.  Levin.  Certainly,  Senator.  The  fight  we  are  referring  to  was 
the  Iran  Barkley-James  Toney  IBF  super  middleweight  champion- 
ship fight.  In  his  deposition,  Iran  Barkley  said  that  he  was  going  to 
pay  Mr.  Minuto  $100,000  from  that  fight.  In  addition,  Bob  Arum, 
who  was  the  promoter  of  that  fight,  has  told  us  that  in  order  to  get 
Barkley  to  agree  to  that  fight,  he  had  to  agree  to  a  side  deal  where 
Arum  would  pay  Minuto  $125,000,  thus  bringing  Minuto's  total 
take  from  that  fight  to  $225,000. 


107 

Senator  Cohen.  Is  there  any  evidence  that  Mr.  Barkley  himself 
knew  about  this? 

Mr.  Levin.  The  deposition  of  Mr.  Barkley  was  taken  prior  to  the 
fight,  so  talking  about  the  $100,000,  he  was  saying  that  prospective- 
ly, that  is  what  he  was  going  to  pay  Mr.  Minuto.  With  regard  to 
the  side  deal  between  Mr.  Minuto  and  Mr.  Arum,  Mr.  Arum  said 
that  Mr.  Barkley  was  involved  with  the  negotiations  and  therefore 
presumably  was  aware  of  that  side  deal. 

Senator  Cohen.  OK.  Are  there  any  background  checks  that  are 
currently  undertaken  for  those  who  apply  for  licensing  to  partici- 
pate in  boxing? 

Mr.  Lord.  I  think  I  can  answer  that,  Senator.  No.  If  you  submit 
an  application  to  be  licensed,  you  have  to  fill  out  a  form.  It  asks 
certain  questions,  but  to  our  knowledge,  no  one  checks  the  answers, 
no  one  checks  to  see  if  the  individual  has  a  criminal  record  or  has 
any  organized  crime  involvement.  k 

Senator  Cohen.  Who  should  be  in  the  business  of  checking  back- 
ground? Are  you  suggesting  that  the  commissions  do  that  work? 

Mr.  Lord.  Probably  not.  I  think  law  enforcement  would  probably 
be  best  able  to  do  that,  much  in  the  way  the  Senate  does  back- 
ground checks  of  people  who  are  being  appointed  to  positions.  They 
could  simply  call  the  local  law  enforcement,  or  the  Federal  law  en- 
forcement, and  ask  if  the  individual  has  a  criminal  record  or 
known  association  with  original  crime,  something  like  that. 

Senator  Cohen.  And  the  primary  reason  that  current  State-based 
regulatory  systems  are  not  effective  is  what? 

Mr.  Lord.  Well,  I  think  one  of  the  primary  reasons — a  lot  of  the 
States  have  very  good  regulations  on  the  books.  The  problem  is 
they  just  don't  enforce  those  regulations.  The  unlicensed  advisor 
example  is  a  good  one  because  a  lot  of  States  have  regulations  re- 
quiring that  these  people  be  licensed.  The  states  just  do  not  enforce 
those  regulations. 

And  the  second  problem  is  inconsistency,  as  you  just  mentioned. 
There  is  a  definition  for  a  manager  in  every  different  State,  so  you 
may  be  a  manager  under  one  State  but  not  under  the  next.  It  is 
very  confusing. 

Senator  Cohen.  OK.  Could  you  explain  in  a  little  more  detail 
what  methodology  you  used  to  analyze  the  financial  practices  of 
Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.? 

Mr.  Lord.  We  subpoenaed  all  the  records  from  Alfred  Certissimo, 
Inc.,  and  that  included  bank  statements,  tax  records,  cancelled 
checks,  and  any  other  documentation  regarding  Alfred  Certissimo, 
Inc.  Alfred  Certissimo's  sole  business  is  boxing,  so  we  asked  for  all 
of  their  financial  records. 1  We  then  had  GAO  do  a  detailed  break- 
down and  analysis  of  those  records.  We  had  those  submitted  into  a 
database  so  that  we  could  then  generate  reports  showing  certain 
payment  practices.  And  that  is  how  we  discovered  the  practices 
that  we  have  testified  to  today. 

Senator  Cohen.  Would  you  explain  again  why  you  believe  that 
when  two  checks  were  written  to  the  same  person  on  the  same  day, 


1  Exhibit  No.  44  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


108 

at  least  one  of  those  checks  was  converted  to  cash.  What  evidence 
do  you  have  of  that? 

Mr.  Lord.  The  evidence  that  we  have  is  that  over  10  percent  of 
all  checks  written  on  the  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.  account  are  writ- 
ten in  this  method  illustrated  on  the  top,  the  third  party  endorser 
method.  Stuart  Weiner  writes  a  check  to  himself  for  a  certain 
amount  of  money.  He  then  signs  his  name  on  the  back,  endorsing 
it.  Then  he  puts  the  third  party  endorsement  of  Alfred  Certissimo, 
Inc.,  and  then  he  writes,  "For  deposit  only,"  which  would  make  you 
think  that  he  wrote  himself  a  check  and  then  redeposited  it  into 
the  same  account  the  check  was  written  on,  which  would  make  no 
sense  as  far  as  we  can  tell.  But  anyway,  that's  what  it  looks  like 
happens. 

But  then  what  we  did  was  we  went  through  all  the  bank  state- 
ments, totalled  up  the  deposits,  then  went  through  their  tax 
records,  totalled  up  their  income  minus  loans,  and  saw  that  depos- 
its and  income  balanced.  If  they  were  redepositing  all  these  checks, 
there  would  be  an  imbalance  in  the  income  coming  into  Alfred  Cer- 
tissimo, Inc. 

Senator  Cohen.  If  we  could  see  that  next  chart,1  I  was  going  to 
ask  you  about  other  types  of  practices  involving  Alfred  Certissimo, 
Inc. 

Mr.  Lord.  OK.  This  is  a  third  practice  that  occurs  occasionally, 
and  we  have  deposition  testimony  from  Mr.  McGirt  2  that  Mr. 
Weiner  has  authority  to  write  his  name  on  the  backs  of  checks,  and 
it  appears  that's  what  happened  here.  Stuart  Weiner  wrote  a  check 
to  James  McGirt — and  look  very  carefully  at  the  signature — for 
$2,000,  and  he  appears  to  have  written  his  name  on  the  back,  then 
wrote  "Stuart  Weiner,  For  Deposit  Only."  As  you  can  see  from  the 
corresponding  bank  record,  $2,000  was  taken  out  of  the  account 
and  was  never  put  back  in.  So  the  money  was  evidently  converted 
to  cash. 

Senator  Cohen.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you  for  your  testimony  and  information 
and  for  doing  a  good  job.  We  appreciate  it. 

Our  next  panel  of  witnesses  includes  James  "Buddy"  McGirt, 
former  WBC  welterweight  champion,  who  is  accompanied  by  his  co- 
managers,  Al  Certo  and  Stuart  Weiner.  If  these  gentlemen  would 
please  come  forward. 

I  would  ask  Messrs.  McGirt,  Certo  and  Weiner  to  stand.  Every- 
body has  to  be  sworn  in  before  testifying.  Would  you  please  raise 
your  right  hand?  Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  will  give  before 
this  Subcommittee  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  McGirt.  I  do. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  do. 

Mr.  Weiner.  I  do. 

Senator  Roth.  Gentlemen,  please  be  seated. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Wait  a  second.  We'd  just  like  to  arrange  our  seat- 
ing here  before  you  start. 


1  Exhibit  No.  6  appears  on  page  166. 

2  Exhibit  No.  13  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


109 

Senator  Roth.  Gentlemen,  are  any  of  you  accompanied  by  coun- 
sel today? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes. 

Mr.  D'BliaBlias.  Yes,  Senator.  Let  me  identify  myself.  I  am  Dino 
D'BliaBlias,  and  I  am  an  attorney  from  the  State  of  New  Jersey, 
and  I  represent  Mr.  Certo  and  Mr.  McGirt. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  And  my  name  is  Michael  D'Chiara.  I  am  an  attor- 
ney from  New  York,  and  I  also  represent  Mr.  Certo  and  Mr. 
McGirt. 

Mr.  Schulman.  My  name  is  Edwin  Schulman.  I  am  an  attorney 
from  New  York,  and  I  represent  Mr.  Weiner. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  any  of  the  witnesses  have  a  statement  at  this 
time? 

Mr.  McGirt? 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  We  were  told  that  you  required  a  statement  48 
hours  in  advance,  and  on  that  basis,  we  have  decided  not  to 
produce  one,  although  we  would  like  to  make  a  brief  statement 
now  if  that  is  acceptable  to  the  Subcommittee. 

Senator  Roth.  Yes.  Let  me  say  the  witnesses  are  entitled  to 
counsel  and  the  advice  of  counsel,  but  the  counsel  are  not  the  wit- 
nesses. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  It  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  testifying,  but  just  to 
make  an  observation.  It  seems  as  though  you  have  been  fairly  le- 
nient. 

Senator  Roth.  Let  me  say  that  counsel  has  no  right  to  testify 
here. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  I  understand  that. 

Senator  Roth.  If  you  have  any  advice,  you  can  give  it  to  your 
witness,  but  it  is  limited  to  that. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Right.  But  I  am  still  requesting  of  you,  Mr.  Roth 
and  Senator  McCain,  the  right  to  make  a  brief  statement  before  we 
commence  this  part  of  the  hearing. 

Senator  Roth.  The  witness  can  make  a  statement;  that's  correct. 
He  is  free  to  make  a  statement  now. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Right.  I'm  asking  on  his  behalf  if  I  can  make  a 
statement. 

Senator  Roth.  No,  you  cannot. 

Mr.  D'BliaBlias.  Then,  may  I  have  an  opportunity  to  confer 
with  Mr.  Certo  at  this  moment? 

Senator  Roth.  Yes,  you  may. 

Mr.  Schulman.  Mr.  Roth,  in  the  meantime,  I'm  making  a  re- 
quest on  behalf  of  Mr.  Weiner  whether  any  of  the  questions  that 
are  going  to  be  posed  are  as  a  result  of  electronic  eavesdropping. 

Senator  Roth.  Again,  you  are  here  to  give  advice  to  your  client. 
You  are  not  here  to  ask  questions  or  to  testify. 

Mr.  D'BliaBlias.  Senator  Roth,  would  you  permit  Mr.  Certo  to 
make  a  statement  at  this  time? 

Senator  Roth.  Yes,  of  course,  Mr.  Certo  can  make  a  statement. 


110 

TESTIMONY  OF  ALFRED  CERTISSIMO  AND  JAMES  "BUDDY" 
MCGIRT,  FORMER  WBC  WELTERWEIGHT  CHAMPION,  ACCOM- 
PANIED BY  MICHAEL  DCHIARA  AND  DINO  D'BLIABLIAS,  COUN- 
SEL; AND  STUART  WEINER,  ACCOMPANIED  BY  EDWIN  SCHUL- 
MAN,  COUNSEL 

Mr.  Certissimo.  How  do  you  do?  First  of  all,  this  is  the  very  first 
time  that  we  heard  a  statement  from  Mr.  Gravano.  I  didn't  even 
know  what  he  was  going  to  say. 

Senator  Roth.  Would  you  pull  the  microphone  closer  to  you, 
please? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  sure.  And  we  weren't  actually  prepared,  but 
anyhow,  despite  that  fact  that  we  didn't  know,  I  am  here  and  pre- 
pared to  answer  all  the  questions  that  you  have  to  put  forth  to  me. 

Senator  Roth.  Is  that  your  complete  statement,  Mr.  Certo? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Well,  I  don't  know.  You  know  I'd  like  to  give  my 
views  on  his  testimonial  over  here. 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  you  are  free  to  make  a  statement  now  if  you 
wish. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Do  you  want  me  to  say  it  now?  OK.  Well,  first  of 
all,  you  know  I  have  been  involved  in  boxing  for  45,  maybe  50 
years,  ever  since  I  was  a  young  boy.  And  Mr.  Gravano  made  a 
statement  that  he  was  involved  in  boxing  in  the  forties  and  fif- 
ties— I  don't  know  if  he  mentioned  the  forties,  but  even  in  the  fif- 
ties— how  old  was  Mr.  Gravano  in  the  fifties?  Nine  years  old?  Eight 
years  old?  Or  in  the  sixties,  too. 

The  statement  that  he  made,  taking  money  off  fighters,  I  mean, 
here  is  a  man  who  has  admitted  to  killing  19  people.  It  is  so  easy  to 
put  a  gun  to  anyone's  head — Donald  Trump  or  Don  King — and  say 
give  me  $5  million,  give  me  $50  million,  or  I'll  blow  your  brains 
out,  instead  of  taking  nickels  and  dimes  off  boxers.  It  doesn't  make 
sense.  He's  the  gangster  here.  He's  the  guy  who  knows  everything. 
I've  never  seen  this  guy  in  boxing  in  my  life. 

I've  been  around  in  boxing,  in  every  gym — Buddy  McGirt  trains 
in  Jersey  City,  New  Jersey.  He  said  that  his  organization  has  a 
gym.  Why  didn't  we  train  there,  then,  if  I  was  associated  with  his 
so-called  friends?  Tell  me  why.  And  why  did  it  take  us  11  years  to 
get  to  the  position  that  we're  in  now? 

If  anybody  ever  tried  to  come  to  us,  or  muscle  me,  or  tried  to 
take  anything  from  me,  the  first  thing  I  would  do  is  run  to  the  law. 
Nobody  ever  asked  me,  even  during  the  other  investigations  they 
had,  nobody  ever  asked,  "Is  anybody  bothering  you  guys?  Is  there 
anything  we  could  do?"  What  they  did  was  they  threw  a  lot  of 
names  around,  a  lot  of  Italian  names.  And  it  just  gets  me  sick  and 
tired  of  hearing  it. 

You  guys  look  at  me,  with  the  dark  glasses,  I  look  mysterious, 
and  I  talk  through  the  side  of  my  mouth — well,  he  must  be  a  bad 
guy;  he  must  be  organized  crime.  I  would  like  Mr.  Gravano — I 
don't  even  like  to  call  the  guy  "Mr.  Gravano" — to  take  a  lie  detec- 
tor right  now,  in  front  of  me,  and  I'll  take  the  lie  detector,  and 
we'll  see  who  is  lying,  in  front  of  you  guys,  in  front  of  all  these 
people.  I  never  met  the  guy  in  my  life.  He  is  full  of  shit  when  he 
says  I  know  him.  I  don't  even  know  this  guy.  This  is  the  very  first 
time.  And  I  am  under  oath  now,  right?  My  daughter  is  dead,  and 


Ill 

I'd  rather  swear  on  her  grave  to  tell  the  truth— I  never  met  this 
guy  in  my  life.  This  is  the  very  first  time  I  ever  laid  eyes  on  him. 

He  talked  about  boxing.  This  guy  don't  even  know  what  boxing 
is.  I'm  an  expert  at  it.  I  have  been  in  every  phase  of  the  game. 

Senator  McCain.  Mr.  Certo,  you  don't  have  to  shout. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  know.  That's  my  nature.  I  can't  help  it.  I'm 
sorry,  sir. 

Senator  McCain.  No  problem. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  And  another  thing — everything  looks  so  mysteri- 
ous— that  picture  up  there,  and  this  and  that — I  mean,  I  look  like  a 
criminal  here.  What  are  you  guys  doing  here? 

Senator  Roth.  Let  me  intervene 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Well,  I'd  like  to  finish  my  statement. 

Senator  Roth.  You  can  talk 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  You  gave  him  the  right,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  Counsel  has  no  right  to  intervene,  I  would  remind 
him.  We  are  giving  him  the  opportunity  to  speak,  but  we'll  ask  you 
to  be  as  brief  as  possible. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  OK.  I  mean,  these  gentleman  that  just  got  off 
the  table,  these  are  grown,  educated  men.  Everything  we  done  was 
aboveboard.  Every  dime  that  was  spent  was — the  checks  that  they 
are  referring  to,  if  they  couldn't  find  it,  then  shame  on  them;  these 
are  grown,  educated  men.  And  you  guys  come  over  here,  and  you 
paint  a  picture  like  we  done  something  wrong. 

I've  dealt  with  Madison  Square  Garden  for  11  years.  These  are 
reputable  people,  and  we've  done  everything  aboveboard. 

Senator  Roth.  All  right.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Certo.  We  will  proceed 
now  with  the  questions. 

Mr.  McGirt,  is  it  correct  that  you  are  currently  managed  by  Al 
Certo  and  Stu  Weiner? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  it  is. 

Senator  Roth.  And  do  you  currently  have  a  written  management 
contract  with  Al  Certo  and  Stu  Weiner? 

Mr.  McGirt.  With  Al  Certo,  yes. 

Senator  Roth.  With 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  I  do. 

Senator  Roth.  And  is  it  true  that  Mr.  Certo  and  Mr.  Weiner  are 
entitled  to  receive  together  one-third  of  your  boxing  earnings? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  it  is. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  McGirt,  as  I  understood  it,  you  last  fought  in 
New  York,  is  that  correct,  on  March  8,  1993? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Wasn't  it  March  6,  1993. 

Senator  Roth.  March  6th. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  it  is. 

Senator  Roth.  And  are  you  aware  that  Mr.  Weiner  is  not  li- 
censed in  New  York  as  a  boxing  manager? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Not  really,  no,  I'm  not. 

Senator  Roth.  Now,  what  specific  duties  with  regard  to  your 
management  does  Mr.  Weiner  have? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Would  you  like  for  me  to  start  from  day  one,  or  just 
briefly? 


112 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  your  deposition  testimony  1  indicates  that 
you  do  not  think  Weiner  knows  much  about  boxing. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Say  that  again? 

Senator  Roth.  Is  that  correct?  The  deposition  testimony  indicates 
that  you  do  not  think  Weiner  knows  much  about  boxing.  Do  you 
recall  giving  that  testimony  in  the  deposition? 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Senator 

Senator  Roth.  The  question  is  addressed  to  Mr.  McGirt. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  And  all  I  am  trying  to  do  is  be  helpful  with  Mr. 
McGirt,  and  I  think  there  is  some  misunderstanding  as  to  what  you 
mean  by  not  much  knowledge. 

Senator  Roth.  You  are  free  to  advise  the  witness,  but  you  are  not 
free  to  make  commentary. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  OK,  then,  if  you  would  wait  1  minute,  let  me  get 
up,  walk  around  and  sit  next  to  my  client,  and  then  you  can  con- 
tinue with  your  questions. 

Mr.  D'BliaBlias.  Senator,  may  we  have  a  reference  to  the  testi- 
mony by  page  and  line  of  the  transcript  which  we  have  before  us? 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Yes.  It's  page  25  of  his  deposition  testimony.  Mr. 
McGirt  is  describing — line  15  and  below — referring  to  "Stuey"  and 
the  negotiations — "He  wouldn't  open  his  mouth  because  he 
wouldn't  know  what  he  was  talking  about."  The  question  is 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  If  you  read  the  whole  answer  in  context,  I  think 
you  see  it  refers  to  the  beginning  of  that  relationship. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Well,  then,  he  can  answer  the  question.  The  question 
is  do  you  think 

Mr.  McGirt.  That  was  from  11  years  ago  when  I  first  met  him, 
and  he  first  got  involved  in  boxing,  and  we  met  Al  Certo.  He  didn't 
know  too  much  then,  because  he  was  new  to  the  game,  so  he  would 
just  sit  around  and  just  listen  and  pick  Al's  brain  and  find  out 
more  and  more  about  boxing  every  day. 

Senator  Roth.  Let  me  ask  you  this,  Mr.  McGirt.  Does  Mr.  Weiner 
negotiate  contracts  for  you? 

Mr.  McGirt.  No.  He  sits  in  while  Al  and  my  lawyer,  Michael, 
and  Bobby  Goodman — while  they  negotiate,  Stuey  sits  in. 

Senator  Roth.  But  he  does  not  help  negotiate? 

Mr.  McGirt.  No,  because  we  both  have  all  the  faith  in  Al,  our 
lawyer,  and  Bobby  Goodman  to  do  the  best  for  me. 

Senator  Roth.  Does  Mr.  Weiner  help  with  your  training? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  he  does. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Again,  we'd  like  to  please  have  a  page  and  line 
reference,  Senator. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Pages  28  and  29  of  the  deposition. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  And  what  line? 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Well,  there's  a  series  of  questions  there. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Starting  where,  Dan? 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Starting  at  the  middle  of  page  28. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Well,  when  you  say  "training,"  everything  when 
we're  away,  as  far  as  getting  the  hotels  and  making  sure  that  all 
the  bills  are  paid  and  making  sure  I  have  my  right  physicals,  and 
so  on — that  all  consists  of  training,  and  that's  what  Stuey  helps  me 


1  Exhibit  No.  13  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


113 

with,  because  Al  is  in  the  gym,  and  if  something  has  to  be  done,  he 
would  appoint  Stuey  to  do  it. 

Senator  Roth.  Now,  Mr.  McGirt,  it  is  my  understanding  that  all 
your  boxing  earnings  go  directly  to  the  checking  account  of  a  com- 
pany called  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  So  you  receive  your  boxing  earnings  from  Alfred 
Certissimo,  Inc.,  and  that  company  is  controlled  by  Al  Certo;  is  that 
correct? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  receive  a  lump  sum  in  the  form  of  one 
check  of  your  boxing  earnings  after  a  given  fight,  or  do  you  receive 
various  amounts  over  a  period  of  time? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Excuse  me.  Could  you  repeat  that  again,  please? 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  typically  receive  a  lump  sum  in  the  form 
of  one  check? 

Mr.  McGirt.  It  all  depends  on  the  fight,  how  much  you  get. 
Sometimes  I  get  a  little  cash,  and  then  after  we  break  down  all  the 
expenses  and  everything,  then  I  get  the  rest. 

Senator  Roth.  So  there  are  times  when  you  do  receive  various 
amounts  over  a  period  of  time? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes;  it  varies,  because  each  fight,  the  purse  varies. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  McGirt,  do  you  keep  records  of  the  money  you 
receive  from  Alfred  Certissimo  Inc.  to  assure  that  you  receive  all 
the  money  you  are  due? 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  I'd  like  to  confer  with  my  client  for  a  second. 

[Pause.] 

Mr.  McGirt.  I  basically  do  the  best  I  can  to  keep  track  of  every- 
thing that  is  paid  to  me,  and  as  far  as  all  the  expenses  go.  They 
show  me  everything,  and  I  go  over  everything,  because  if  they  give 
it  to  me,  I'm  kind  of  irresponsible,  and  I'll  misplace  it.  But  they 
have  everything  in  writing,  and  they  show  me  everything  that  goes 
to  expenses  and  the  checks  to  make  sure  everything  evens  out. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  get  a  written  report  after  each  fight? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  I  usually  do,  yes.  I  have  them  with  the  ac- 
countant. 

Senator  Roth.  You  were  asked  to  produce  such  records  by  a  Sub- 
committee subpoena,  but  your  attorney  indicated  you  could  not 
find  any  such  records;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  it  is. 

Senator  Roth.  And  your  accountant  is  the  same  accountant  that 
Al  Certo  and  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.  uses? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  McGirt,  do  you  on  occasion  receive  cash  pay- 
ments from  Mr.  Certo  and  Mr.  Weiner? 

Mr.  McGirt.  As  far  as 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  receive  cash  payments  from  either  Mr. 
Certo  or  Mr.  Weiner? 

Mr.  McGirt.  After  the  fight,  you  mean,  or 

Senator  Roth.  At  any  time. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Oh,  like  if  I  need  money  for  myself  while  we  re 
training,  yes;  they  would  give  me  a  check,  and  I'd  go  cash  the 
check. 


114 

Senator  Roth.  You  heard  staff  testimony  about  Stu  Weiner  writ- 
ing checks  to  you,  then  endorsing  your  name 

Mr.  McGirt.  Right. 

Senator  Roth  [continuing].  And  then  depositing  them  into  his 
own  account,  or  the  Al  Certissimo,  Inc.  account.  Were  you  aware  of 
this  practice? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Well,  he  would  write  "for  deposit  only"  just  to  show 
that  I  received  the  money.  This  way,  you  have  a  copy  of  the  check. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  saying  you're  receiving  cash  through  such 
a  transaction? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  because  it's  not  for  a  large  amount  of  money. 

Senator  Roth.  You  say  not  for  large  amounts  of  money.  That  one 
is  for  $2,000.  Would  you  consider  that  a  large  amount  of  money? 

Mr.  McGirt.  No. 

Senator  Roth.  You  would  not  consider  that  a  large  amount  of 
money? 

Mr.  McGirt.  No. 

Senator  Roth.  What  would  you  consider  a  large  amount  of 
money? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Twenty  thousand,  fifteen  thousand. 

Senator  Roth.  So,  did  you  get  $2,000  cash  for  that  check? 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  It  would  be  helpful  if  you  could  show  us  a  copy  of 
the  check  and  the  date 

Senator  Roth.  It's  right  behind  you  on  the  board. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  If  you  have  any  present  recollection  of  Check  No. 
1841  from  November  of  1991;  if  not,  I  don't  want  you  to  testify 
about  things  that  you  don't  recall. 

Mr.  McGirt.  No,  I  don't  recall  exactly  what  I  used  it  for,  to  be 
honest  with  you;  that's  like  2  years  ago.  I've  had  a  lot  of  fights 
since  then,  so  my  memory  bank  is  kind  of  short. 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  according  to  the  endorsement  of  that  check, 
it  was  endorsed  by  Stuart  Weiner  into  his  personal  account.  So  how 
did  you  get  the  money? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Well,  I  don't  remember.  That  was  November  29th, 
correct,  of  1991? 

Senator  Roth.  Yes. 

Mr.  McGirt.  That  was  right  around  when  I  was  fighting  for  the 
title.  So  my  mind  at  the  time  wasn't  on  what  the  money  was  going 
to  at  that  time. 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  why  would  Mr.  Weiner  put  the  check  in  his 
own  account? 

Mr.  McGirt.  You'll  have  to  ask  him  that  one.  I  couldn't  answer 
that  one — of  course,  around  fight  time,  he  doesn't  usually  bother 
me  because  I'm  usually  grouchy. 

Senator  Roth.  Now,  are  you  familiar  with  a  Joseph  "JoJo"  Cor- 
ozzo? 

Mr.  McGirt.  In  which  aspect  familiar? 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  know  who  he  is? 

Mr.  McGirt.  I  know  him  just  as  a  friend  of  Stuey's. 

Senator  Roth.  Have  you  met  him? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  Did  Stu  Weiner  introduce  you  to  "JoJo"  Corozzo? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  he  did. 


115 

Senator  Roth.  Has  Mr.  Corozzo  ever  watched  you  train  or 
watched  you  box? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Well,  he  watched  me  train  once  when  I  was  train- 
ing in  Florida.  My  training  was  open  to  the  public,  and  he  hap- 
pened to  be  there  one  day,  and  he  just  came  over  and  told  me 
"Good  workout,"  and  that  was  basically  it. 

Senator  Roth.  Did  Mr.  Corozzo  or  Mr.  Weiner  ever  ask  you  to 
attend  the  viewing  of  a  tape  of  one  of  your  past  fights  at  Choices 
bar,  now  called  City  Limits,  in  the  Ozone  Park  area  of  Queens? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Which  date  was  that,  may  I  ask? 

Senator  Roth.  It's  in  New  York. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  No.  What  date  was  the  question,  Senator? 

Senator  Roth.  The  question  was  did  Mr.  Corozzo  or  Mr.  Weiner 
ever  ask  you  to  attend  the  viewing  of  a  tape  of  one  of  your  past 
fights  at  Choices  bar 

Mr.  McGirt.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  Stuey  has  asked  me, 
yes. 

Senator  Roth.  So  the  answer  was  yes.  When  was  ihat? 

Mr.  McGirt.  That  would  have  to  be  after  the  Simon  Brown  fight, 
either  December  of  1991  or  January  of  1992. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  know  a  person  named  Howie  Santos? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Howie  Santos?  No. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  know  Ronnie  "One  Arm"  Trueechio? 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  If  you  could  perhaps  spell  it,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  T-r-u-e-e-c-h-i-o.  Ronnie  "One  Arm." 

Mr.  McGirt.  No. 

Senator  Roth.  He  owns  Choices  Bar. 

Mr.  McGirt.  I've  never  heard  of  Choices. 

Senator  Roth.  Was  "JoJo"  Corozzo  at  that  tape  showing  you  at- 
tended at  City  Limits? 

Mr.  McGirt.  As  far  as  I  recall — I  can't  remember — there  were 
like  200,  300  people  in  there.  It  was  really  crowded,  and  a  lot  of 
people  were  congratulating  me  after  the  fight,  and  I  didn't  really 
stay  too  long. 

Senator  Roth.  Were  you  aware  they  were  charging  $100  per 
person  to  attend  that  taping? 

Mr.  McGirt.  No,  because  I  brought  a  crew  of  people  with  me, 
and  we  all  just  walked  in. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  aware  that  "JoJo"  Corozzo  is  a  soldier  in 
the  Gambino  organized  crime  family? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Only  from  the  newspapers,  when  I  saw  it  in  the 
papers;  that  was  about  it. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  know  if  "JoJo"  Corozzo  receives  any  por- 
tion of  your  boxing  earnings  or  has  any  financial  interest  in  you? 

Mr.  McGirt.  No. 

Senator  Roth.  Have  you  ever  heard  allegations  about  Stu  Weiner 
being  associated  with  organized  crime? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Not  until  now. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  aware  that  Mr.  Weiner  is  named  as  a 
member  of  the  Corozzo  crew  of  the  Gambino  organized  crime 
family  in  an  indictment  handed  down  by  the  Manhattan  D.A.'s 
office  on  November  11,  1992? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Just  when  I  read  that,  that's  when  I  knew  it.  Other 
than  that,  I  didn't  know. 


116 

Senator  Roth.  At  this  time,  do  you  have  questions,  Senator 
McCain? 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  McGirt,  I  have  watched  you  fight  on  many  occasions.  I  have 
admired  your  skills,  I  have  admired  your  courage. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Thank  you. 

Senator  McCain.  Part  of  the  focus  of  these  hearings  is  consider- 
ing legislation  which,  frankly,  is  primarily  aimed  at  protecting 
people  like  you  from  being  exploited  by  undesirable  elements,  from 
boxing  under  conditions  which  may  cause  you  severe  injury,  and 
frankly,  cleaning  up  a  sport  which  in  the  view  of  many  Americans 
is  not  performing  in  the  best  interest  not  only  of  the  American 
public  but  individuals  such  as  yourself.  And  I  hope  that  you  under- 
stand that  in  the  context  of  the  questions  that  are  being  asked  of 
you  today. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Right. 

Senator  McCain.  I  watched  you  fight  in  your  last  fight,  and  you 
lost  that  fight.  I  watched  the  post-fight  interview,  and  you  stated 
that  your  shoulder  had  gone  out  in  one  of  the  early  rounds  and 
that  you  had  been  basically  fighting  one-armed  in  that  fight.  Is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  it  is. 

Senator  McCain.  There  were  numerous  stories  in  the  media 
prior  to  that  fight  that  you  had  a  damaged  shoulder.  Is  that  cor- 
rect? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes. 

Senator  McCain.  And  you  chose  to  go  into  that  fight,  and  the 
outcome  of  that  fight  was  that  you  were  unable  to  perform  to  your 
fullest  capability,  and  you  took  a  lot  of  punishment  because  of  the 
fact  that  you  were  incapacitated  to  some  degree.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  McGirt.  I  didn't  take  any  punishment;  I  wouldn't  say  that.  I 
think  I  did  pretty  good  fighting  with  the  conditions  I  was  under. 

Senator  McCain.  Well,  I  think  you  did  magnificently 

Mr.  McGirt.  Thank  you. 

Senator  McCain  [continuing].  But  the  fact  is  you  took  more  pun- 
ishment than  you  would  have  if  you'd  had  the  use  of  your  other 
arm. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Oh,  most  definitely,  but  that  all  came  from — you 
understand  I  had  two  MRIs  done,  and  three  doctors  read  the  MRI, 
and  they  all  told  me  all  I  had  was  tendinitis.  So  if  I  have  three  doc- 
tors who  are  supposed  to  be  professionals  and  know  what  they  are 
doing,  saying,  "It  is  tendinitis;  you  can  do  it,"  I've  got  to  take  their 
word  on  it.  But  after  the  fight,  we  found  out  it  was  more  than  that, 
so  before  the  fight,  Al  had  sat  me  down  and  said,  "Buddy,  look,  if 
you  hurt,  don't  go  through  with  this  fight,  because  your  title  means 
everything  to  you;  you  worked  hard  to  get  there." 

But  I  looked  at  it  in  the  aspect  that  I've  worked  hard  for  11 
years  to  get  where  I've  gotten.  Previous  to  the  Pernell  Whitaker 
fight  and  the  Simon  Brown  fight  where  I  finally  made  money,  the  9 
years  before  that,  nobody  gave  me  nothing.  I  worked  hard  to  get 
there.  So  if  a  doctor  tells  me  I  had  tendinitis,  I  wasn't  going  to  turn 
down  the  opportunity.  I  had  to  take  the  chance.  And  I  told  Al, 
"Look,  my  arm  feels  good.  I'm  going  to  do  the  best  I  can.  I'm  going 
in  there  and  give  it  all  I  got."  And  unfortunately,  my  arm  didn't 


117 

hold  up.  After  the  fourth  round,  it  went  on  me,  and  I  was  really 
concerned.  At  one  time,  he  wanted  to  stop  the  fight,  but  by  me 
being  a  fighter  and  a  champion,  I  said,  "Look,  Al,  I  gotta  go  out 
there  and  do  what  I  gotta  do." 

So  it's  like  no  one  forced  me  into  doing  it.  The  decision  I  made 
was  my  own. 

Senator  McCain.  Mr.  McGirt,  I  understand  exactly  what  you  are 
saying,  and  I  watched  you  say  that  on  television.  But  let  me  tell 
you  the  appearance  here.  The  word  is  out  all  over  that  Buddy 
McGirt  has  a  very  badly  damaged  shoulder — that  was  carried  in 
the  media,  it  was  talked  about  before  the  fight  started — and  yet 
there  were,  quote,  three  doctors  who  gave  you  MRI.  Those  doctors 
were  wrong,  weren't  they? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes.  We  found  that  afterwards. 

Senator  McCain.  OK.  Those  doctors  were  wrong. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Right. 

Senator  McCain.  It's  a  little  bit  like  some  other  professions — you 
can  kind  of  shop  around.  And  I  think  the  fact  is  that  if  you  had 
gotten  the  right  kind  of  diagnosis — because  of  what  happened 
during  the  fight,  if  you'd  gotten  the  proper  diagnosis  that  you 
wouldn't  have  been  in  that  fight,  at  least  at  that  time. 

Mr.  McGirt.  But  these  were  orthopedic  surgeons.  The  doctor  who 
discovered  the  injury,  Dr.  Orcheck,  he  said  that  it's  a  very  hard 
injury  to  find.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  when  he  read  the  MRI,  he  just 
said  that  I  had  a  tear,  but  when  he  opened  me  up,  he  said  it  was 
worse  than  that.  So  even  he  couldn't  really  diagnose  it,  and  from 
what  I  hear,  he's  the  best. 

So  you've  got  to  understand,  you  know — you  have  to  put  yourself 
in  the  fighter's  position — when  you  work  hard  all  your  life,  and 
you  see  other  fighters  getting  the  big  breaks,  and  you  know  deep 
down  in  your  heart  that  you're  better  than  they  are,  and  you're 
breaking  your  back  and  your  butt  every  day  to  get  there,  and 
you're  right  there,  and  all  they  tell  you  is  you've  got  tendinitis,  you 
have  to  take  that  chance  sometimes.  Sometimes  you  have  to  do 
things  you  don't  want  to  do  to  get  what  you  want  in  life.  And  this 
was  my  chance,  and  I  had  to  take  it. 

Senator  McCain.  Mr.  McGirt,  I  fully  understand  and  appreciate 
what  you  did.  I  believe  that  almost  any  person  of  your  caliber  and 
proven  courage  would  do  exactly  the  same  thing.  I  don't  think  it 
was  your  responsibility.  I  think  it  was  somebody  else's  responsibil- 
ity to  give  you  the  kind  of  examination,  and  I  happen  to  believe  the 
state  of  the  art  of  medicine  is  that  they  could  have  detected  that, 
and  I  believe  that  what  is  required  in  boxing  is  the  kind  of  exami- 
nation which  would  have  told  you  that  the  risk  of  re-injuring — or 
injuring,  depending  on — was  very  great  and  that  you  should  wait. 

I  also  understand  that  part  of  the  motivation  is  what  is  your 
chance  to  get  a  big  fight  with  that  kind  of  purse  and  that  kind  of 
publicity  if  you  have  to  step  back.  And  there  have  been  times,  as 
you  and  I  know,  that  fighters  have  had  to  cancel  fights  and  never 
had  the  opportunity  again. 

Mr.  McGirt.  But  if  you  have  three  orthopedic  surgeons  that  tell 
you  it's  tendinitis,  three  different  ones,  you  have  a  tendency  to  be- 
lieve that  the  doctors  are  supposedly  right,  because  they  are  doc- 
tors,  and   that's   their  job.   And   they're   reading  the   MRIs,   and 


118 

they're  telling  me,  "Buddy,  this  is  what  it  is,  it's  only  tendinitis," 
and  they  show  me  the  MRIs.  And  Dr.  Orcheck  read  the  same  MRIs 
that  they  read,  and  he  detected  it.  So  it  was  a  case  of  listening  to 
these  three  doctors  and  doing  my  therapy,  and  then  I  got  examined 
a  week  before  the  fight  by  the  commission  doctor — he  examined 
me,  also.  And  I  told  him  myself  that  the  week  he  examined  me  was 
my  best  week.  That  was  the  week  that  my  arm  felt  the  best. 

Senator  McCain.  Well,  Mr.  McGirt,  the  fact  is — and  this  is  the 
appearance,  as  I  said — you  had  an  injury.  The  boxing  commission 
decided  that  you — did  you  not  let  the  New  York  commission  doctor 
see  your  medical  records  before  the  fight? 

Mr.  McGirt.  They  had  access  to  everything  if  they  wanted  it.  My 
mind  was  just  on  the  fight.  They  had  the  doctors'  names  that  had 
everything.  All  they  had  to  do  was  call  the  doctors.  Now,  whether 
they  did  that,  I  can't  say;  I  don't  know  if  they  did  that  or  not. 

Senator  McCain.  OK.  Look,  I  understand  exactly  what  you're 
saying,  and  I  understand  your  response,  but  I  happen  to  believe 
that  if  we'd  had  the  proper  kind  of  oversight  of  your  business  that 
it  would  have  spared  you  from  having  this  kind  of  sequence  of 
events  that  you  went  through,  because  I'm  sure  you  still  believe 
that  you  would  have  won  that  fight  if  you'd  had  the  proper  use  of 
both  arms. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Most  definitely.  I  know  in  my  heart — now  that  my 
arm  is  fixed  and  I've  had  the  surgery,  I  know  that  if  my  arm  was 
better,  I  would  have  knocked  him  out.  But  it's  too  late  now.  That's 
dead  and  gone.  So  now  I've  got  to  think  ahead  and  just  focus  on 
getting  my  title  back,  getting  my  career  back  on  track. 

Senator  McCain.  What  we  are  trying  to  do  in  this  legislation 
that  Senator  Roth  and  Senator  Nunn  have  been  involved  in  for  a 
long  time  now  is  to  put  in  the  kind  of  safeguards  that  would  pre- 
vent a  recurrence  of  what  happened  to  you,  Mr.  McGirt.  And  orga- 
nized crime  is  one  part  of  this  issue.  There  is  story  after  story  of 
boxers  who  have  fought  with  injuries,  some  that  are  horrendous 
stories,  who  were  not  physically  prepared  to  fight  and  were  severe- 
ly injured  or  even  killed  in  the  ring  because  we  don't  have  the 
proper  oversight. 

I  don't  expect  you  to  agree  with  that,  but  those  are  facts. 

Mr.  McGirt.  But  you  also  have  football  players  who  play  with 
broken  ankles  and  broken  hands,  broken  thumbs;  they  play,  also, 
and  they  shoot  up  certain  drugs  to  withstand  the  pain,  whereas  as 
fighters,  we  can't  do  that.  We  have  to  take  drug  tests.  We  have  to 
go  in  there  and  fight  with  the  pain.  So  if  that's  the  case  for  boxing, 
it  should  be  like  that  with  all  other  sports,  shouldn't  it? 

Senator  McCain.  I  certainly  agree  with  you,  Mr.  McGirt,  but  I 
would  think  that  for  the  numbers  of  people  who  are  contestants, 
and  the  deaths  and  serious  injury  that  have  resulted  by  the  nature 
of  your  sport,  you  would  find  it  far,  far  overshadows  any  other  ath- 
letic event. 

I  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  McGirt. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Thank  you. 

Chairman  Nunn.  I'll  yield  to  Senator  Dorgan. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  very  much. 


119 

Mr.  McGirt,  I  was  going  to  ask  some  questions  similar  to  the 
questions  that  Mr.  McCain  asked  you.  I,  too,  am  an  admirer  of  your 
skills;  I  have  watched  you  fight  a  number  of  times. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Dorgan.  I  have  watched  Iran  Barkley  fight  a  good 
number  of  times.  And  I  know  that  the  two  of  you  who  come  to  tes- 
tify here  as  champions  or  past  champions  of  the  sport  are  people 
with  extraordinary  skill  who  have  risen  to  the  top  of  that  sport. 

You  probably  well  know  that  as  you  came  up,  you  were  club 
fighting  opponents — people  who  are  never  going  to  get  near  your 
level  in  boxing.  These  people  are  paid  $100,  $200,  or  $500  for  a  club 
fight  someplace,  knocked  out  on  a  Friday  night  in  one  city;  an  op- 
ponent to  be  knocked  out 

Mr.  McGirt.  I've  never  fought  in  one  like  that.  I  mean,  every 
one,  from  my  first  fight  on,  have  been  tough  fights.  You  can  check 
the  record  books  and  check  them  out.  That's  one  thing  that  Al 
says,  "I've  got  to  see  if  you  can  fight."  So  I  always  rose  to  a  higher 
level  each  fight.  If  the  opponent  didn't  live  up  to  his  capabilities — 
sometimes  they  get  stage  fright — like,  I've  beaten  fighters  who 
have  come  back  to  beat  top  10  guys.  So  I  wouldn't  say  that 

Senator  Dorgan.  Well,  I  wasn't  speaking  specifically  about  your 
situation  except  to  say  that  a  very  small  percentage  of  boxers  are 
going  to  rise  to  become  world  champions  or  to  be  part  of  the  top  10 
in  the  organizations.  Many  of  the  boxers  are  going  to  be  in  unpro- 
tected club  fight  situations,  being  paid  $200  and  knocked  out — I 
don't  know  whether  you  know  a  guy  named  "Mouse" 

Mr.  McGirt.  Well,  I  only  received  $200  my  first  pro  fight. 

Senator  Dorgan.  But  the  point  is,  with  no  safety  standards,  no 
health  standards  essentially,  no  central  registry  of  boxers,  it  is 
really  the  only  professional  sport  left  in  which  the  boxer  is  left  un- 
protected. 

You  could  fight  as  a  boxer  tonight  in  New  Jersey  and  show  up 
tomorrow  night  in  Montana  and  be  knocked  out  in  both  States,  and 
fight  under  two  different  names,  and  nobody  is  going  to  know  the 
difference.  And  the  point  that  Mr.  McCain  was  trying  to  raise  is 
that  part  of  this  is  about  corruption,  and  part  of  it  is  about  safety. 
We  are  trying  to  see  if  we  can't  do  something  to  protect  a  legion  of 
boxers  out  there  who  are  never  going  to  be  champions,  but  who  are 
going  to  get  beaten  and  battered  for  a  few  hundred  bucks  and  be 
opponents  all  their  lives,  working  in  unsafe  conditions  and  ending 
up  with  zero — no  money,  nothing  but  heartache  and  physical  trou- 
bles. 

I  was  going  to  ask  the  same  kind  of  questions  as  Mr.  McCain  did. 
I  read  the  day  of  your  fight  in  the  newspaper  here  in  Washington, 
D.C.  of  your  shoulder  problems.  I  also  watched  your  fight  against 
Simon  Brown,  who  is  a  terrific  fighter,  really  a  world  class,  terrific 
fighter,  a  great  champion.  You  beat  him.  And  then  you  fight  an- 
other great  fighter  in  Pernell  Whitaker.  A  newspaper  story  on  the 
day  of  your  fight  says  you've  got  serious  shoulder  troubles.  Well, 
part  of  what  I  read  in  the  newspaper  isn't  true  as  well,  so  who 
knows  what  you  read  and  what  is  true.  But  it  turns  out  you  go  into 
the  ring  that  night.  And  I  think  Senator  McCain  is  sort  of  asking 
the  question  under  what  kind  of  financial  pressure. 


120 

You  went  into  the  ring  that  night,  and  you  did  have  shoulder 
trouble,  and  Mr.  Whitaker  won.  You  had  an  operation  a  couple  of 
weeks  later,  and  a  newspaper  article  at  that  time  said:  "Certo  is 
alleged  in  one  press  report  to  have  dissuaded  McGirt  from  seeing  a 
private  physician  about  his  shoulder  prior  to  the  fight."  I'd  like  to 
ask  you  about  the  veracity  of  that.  Certo  was  quoted  as  saying: 
"Before  the  fight,  I  had  the  injury.  I've  still  got  the  injury  and  a 
million  bucks." 

Do  you  know  of  the  veracity  of  that  statement? 

Mr.  McGirt.  No,  I  don't,  but  you  have  to  know  Al  in  order  to — 
certain  statements  he  makes,  you  have  to  know  him.  Sometimes, 
Al  will  make  a  statement,  and  the  reporters — and  nothing  against 
the  reporters  back  there — but  they  will  switch  it  around  to  make  it 
seem  derogatory,  because  of  the  way  that  I  went  into  the  fight  with 
my  injury;  do  you  know  what  I  mean? 

But  all  along,  if  they  would  have  been  with  me  in  training,  they 
would  have  seen  the  other  side  of  Al  Certo,  where  every  day,  he 
would  call  me  up  to  see  how  I  was  doing,  and  he  would  watch  every 
movement  I  made.  If  I  squinted  my  eyes,  his  theory  was:  "What's 
wrong?  What  did  you  hurt?  What  did  you  do?  What's  wrong?  I'm 
going  to  pull  out  of  the  fight.  I'm  going  to  do  this."  And  I  would 
say,  "No,  Al.  Don't  worry.  I'm  going  to  be  OK." 

So  whatever  was  said,  I  can't  say  if  he  said  that  or  not,  but  by 
knowing  Al,  sometimes  Al  makes  crazy  statements,  but  that's  the 
relationship  we  have. 

Senator  Dorgan.  What  were  the  consequences  to  you  of  pulling 
out  of  this  fight  if  you  felt  you  were  injured?  If  you  had  decided, 
"I'm  not  100  percent.  I  owe  the  people  100  percent  to  go  in  against 
a  guy  like  Whitaker.  I'm  going  to  pull  out,  and  we're  going  to  do  a 
rematch  when  I'm  100  percent."  What  would  the  consequences  of 
that  have  been  to  you? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Me,  personally,  my  personal  feeling  was  that  this 
was  my  chance.  It  was  here.  I  had  been  over  so  many  obstacles  to 
get  to  where  I  could  get  that  big  fight.  I  didn't  think  much  of  Whi- 
taker, and  I  still  don't  think  much  of  Whitaker.  And  I  said,  now,  if 
my  arm  can  hold  up  for  at  least  5  or  6  or  7  rounds,  I  can  beat  this 
guy.  That's  the  confidence  I  had  in  myself.  But  unfortunately,  by 
being  misdiagnosed  by  the  three  doctors,  the  injury  was  worse  than 
they  all  expected  and  what  I  expected,  and  after  the  fourth  round, 
I  had  no  use  of  my  left  arm. 

And  nothing  was  really  guaranteed.  So  if  they  would  have  seen 
the  injury,  they  would  have  said  I  have  to  wait  6  months  before  I 
could  fight  again. 

Senator  McCain.  Senator  Dorgan,  could  I  interrupt?  Did  you  just 
say  that  you  thought  maybe  it  would  only  last  5  or  6  rounds? 

Mr.  McGirt.  No.  I  said  if  my  arm  could  hold  up  for  5  or  6 
rounds,  I  could  beat  this  guy,  because  after  that,  my  plan  was  to  go 
to  5  or  6,  and  then  after  6  rounds  start  using  my  hook.  That  was 
my  plan.  Al  said,  "Use  the  hook  early."  I  said,  "Al,  no.  I've  got  to 
get  through  the  first  5  or  6  and  use  my  hook  afterwards."  That  was 
my  plan. 

I  was  trying  to  hook  after  that,  but  it  didn't  register.  It  regis- 
tered from  my  brain  to  this  part,  but  the  rest  of  the  arm  didn't  reg- 
ister. 


121 

Senator  Dorgan.  Let  me  ask  another  type  of  question.  I  appreci- 
ate your  responses  so  far,  but  they  do  raise  a  lot  of  questions  about 
the  regulation  of  the  sport  and  the  health  consequences  to  the  par- 
ticipants. And  you  are  right — football  players  will  play  with  a  cast. 
It  is  also  true  that  a  baseball  pitcher  with  your  injury  may  not  be 
pitching  for  a  full  year. 

But  let  me  ask  another  question,  Mr.  Certissimo,  and  perhaps 
Mr.  McGirt,  you  might  also  respond  to  this.  The  previous  witness 
discussed  going  to  Las  Vegas  and,  on  behalf  of  a  fighter — Snipes,  I 
think — trying  to  get  Snipes  a  higher  rating  from  one  of  the  boxing 
organizations  so  that  they  could  make  a  proposed  fight  more  mar- 
ketable. He  discovered  with  one  of  the  boxing  organizations 
through  his  contacts,  that,  "Yes,  we  could  get  him  ranked  or  rated 
in  the  top  10.  It  would  cost  $10,000.  Maybe  for  the  Gotti  family, 
we'll  do  it  for  $5,000." 

I'd  like  to  ask  if  either  of  you  have  any  knowledge  of  how  fight- 
ers are  ranked  by  the  three  or  four  organizations  out  there  that 
are  doing  the  ranking.  Do  you  have  any  suspicion  that  there  is 
money  changing  hands  under  the  table  for  better  rankings  in  order 
to  market  these  fights? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Well,  I  could  say  "I  think";  I  really  don't  know.  I 
really  don't  know.  If  there  was  an  incident  where  I'd  heard  it  or  I'd 
seen  it,  I  would  tell  you. 

Mr.  McGirt.  I  had  to  fight  everybody  to  get  to  the  top,  so  if  they 
wanted  $10,000,  we  didn't  have  it.  The  cookie  jar  was  empty. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Tell  me,  Mr.  McGirt,  what  role  have  the  boxing 
organizations  played  in  your  life?  They  are  a  mysterious,  sort  of  in- 
teresting group 

Mr.  McGirt.  I  feel  the  same  way  you  do,  and  in  my  eyes,  they 
are  still  mysterious,  and  I'm  a  two-time  world  champion. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  They  still  are;  I  agree  with  you. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Well,  they  have  an  enormous  influence  on  your 
life  in  the  sense  of  how  they  rank  you,  who  you  are  able  to  fight, 
and  so  on,  and  whether  the  fight  is  marketable.  And  I  don't  under- 
stand very  much  about  the  WBO,  WBA,  WBC.  I  have  asked  one  of 
them  for  some  information  about  who  they  are,  how  do  they  oper- 
ate, what  do  they  do,  and  I've  never  even  gotten  a  response,  not 
even  a  letter  saying  "Thanks  for  your  inquiry." 

Mr.  McGirt.  When  I  lost  the  title,  I  got  dropped  to  like  No.  12, 
and  I  had  to  have  19  fights  before  I  got  another  title  fight,  20 
fights;  where  some  guys  lose  the  title,  and  the  next  fight  or  two 
fights  later,  they  get  a  title  fight.  So  I  can't  really  say  what  hap- 
pened. I  know  that  for  me,  it  hasn't  been  too  good. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Why  do  you  think  that  happened  to  you? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Maybe  they  don't  like  the  way  we  dress,  or  they 
don't  like  the  way  my  manager  makes  suits;  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Dorgan.  May  there  be  some  other  reasons? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  There  could  be  other  reasons,  but  we  don't  really 
know.  Senator,  you  got  so  many  organizations  out  there,  and  in  my 
eyes,  they're  all  full  of  baloney.  All  they're  doing  is  taking  money 
off  the  American  people  and  the  American  fighter.  But  let's  get  rid 
of  these  guys,  OK?  Instead  of  having  150  champions,  let's  have  just 
12;  let's  get  rid  of  him,  and  we'll  get  rid  of  all  those  jobs.  I  mean, 


65-875  0-93-5 


122 

that's  what  it's  all  about.  The  American  public  likes  to  be  fooled.  I 
don't  even  know  who  is  the  champion  half  of  the  time  myself. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Which  organization  sanctioned  the  last  bout 
with  Whitaker? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  WBC. 

Senator  Dorgan.  And  what  was  the  cost  that  was  paid  to  the 
WBC  for  that  bout;  can  anybody  tell  me? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Mr.  Goodman  would  know.  I  think  it's  3  percent. 
I'm  not 

Senator  Dorgan.  Three  percent  of  the  gross  is  paid  to  the  organi- 
zation? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No;  the  gross  of  our  purse. 

Senator  Dorgan.  I  understand. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  believe  that's  it;  I'm  not  too  sure. 

Senator  Dorgan.  Senator  Roth  has  done,  I  think,  an  excellent 
job  in  putting  together  a  series  of  hearings  to  explore  the  role  of 
organized  crime  in  boxing.  We  do  know  from  history  that  there  has 
been  an  enormous  role  of  organized  crime  in  boxing  back  in  the 
early  years.  The  question  is,  what  has  happened  in  recent  times?  I 
commend  Senator  Roth  for  the  work  he  has  done  on  this,  and  I 
know  there  are  a  number  of  other  questions  in  the  line  of  question- 
ing that  he  was  pursuing  that  he  wants  to  complete.  I  have  a 
Democratic  Caucus  I  am  supposed  to  be  at,  so  let  me  yield  back  the 
time  and  thank  the  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you  very  much,  Senator  Dorgan. 

I  have  a  few  more  questions  I'd  like  to  ask  you,  Mr.  McGirt.  Did 
anyone  ask  you  to  attend  the  trial  of  John  Gotti? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Which  trial  is  this? 

Senator  Roth.  Of  John  Gotti. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Which  trial? 

Senator  Roth.  The  last  one. 

Mr.  McGirt.  The  last  one,  no.  I  went  to  one  trial  in  1989,  I  be- 
lieve, when  he  was  on  trial. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  One  day.  Not  the  whole  trial. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Right;  I  went  one  day. 

Senator  Roth.  And  who  asked  you  to  attend  that  trial? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Stuart  Weiner. 

Senator  Roth.  Did  you  in  fact  attend  the  trial? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  I  did. 

Senator  Roth.  Did  you  talk  to  John  Gotti  at  the  trial? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Well,  what  happened  was  I  was  in  the  city,  and 
Stuart  had  beeped  me  and  asked  me  to  come  there.  And  I  went  to 
the  trial  first,  and  there  was  a  long  line,  so  I  left,  and  he  beeped 
me  again — I  was  in  the  city  shopping — so  I  went  back,  and  they 
were  having  a  break,  and  I  was  standing  outside,  and  Gotti  hap- 
pened to  be  walking  out,  and  I  was  standing  against  the  wall,  and 
he  came  over  and  wished  me  luck  in  the  future  and  told  me  he 
thought  I  was  a  good  fighter.  And  then  after  that,  a  reporter  came 
over  and  asked  me  what  did  he  say,  and  I  repeated  the  same  thing. 

Senator  Roth.  Why  did  you  go  to  the  trial? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Because  Stuart  had  asked  me  to  come,  and  when  he 
had  beeped  me,  I  was  already  in  Manhattan. 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  did  you  know  who  John  Gotti  was? 


123 

Mr.  McGirt.  Well,  everybody  knew  him.  I  mean,  every  time 
you|d  pick  up  the  paper,  he  was  on  the  front  page,  and  every  time 
you'd  look  at  the  news.  But  Stuey  asked  me  because,  he  said,  "You 
can  come  along.  He's  a  friend  of  mine."  I  said,  "No  problem.  I'm  in 
the  city."  But  if  I  was  on  Long  Island,  I  would  have  said,  "Stuey, 
you've  got  a  little  problem.  I'm  not  going." 

Senator  Roth.  So  you  did  it  as  a  favor  to  Stuart? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes.  But  I  really  wanted  to  see  Bruce  Cutler,  be- 
cause I  think  he's  a  good  lawyer. 

Senator  Roth.  Now,  Mr.  Gravano  has  testified  that  you  and  Al 
Certo  were  present  at  the  Ravenite  Social  Club  on  at  least  one  oc- 
casion. Have  you  ever  been  to  the  Ravenite  Social  Club? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Yes,  but  not  with  Al  Certo. 

Senator  Roth.  Whom  were  you  with? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Stuart  Weiner. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  know  Eddie  Sciandra? 

Mr.  McGirt.  I  would  have  to  see  a  picture  of  him.  I  can't 
really — I  can't  see  too  good  on  that  picture  there. 

Senator  Roth.  Scott,  will  you  hand  him  the  photo? 

[Staff  handing  photograph  to  Mr.  McGirt.]  l 

Mr.  McGirt.  If  this  is  the  guy,  I  met  this  guy  back  in  1986,  but 
he  introduced  himself  as  Eddie. 

Senator  Roth.  Under  what  circumstances  were  you  introduced  to 
him?  Who  introduced  you  to  him? 

Mr.  McGirt.  He  introduced  himself  to  me.  I  was  at  a  wedding. 

Senator  Roth.  Where  was  the  wedding? 

Mr.  McGirt.  In  Staten  Island,  I  believe. 

Senator  Roth.  Had  you  heard  that  Mr.  Sciandra  is  the  acting 
boss  of  the  Bufalino  organized  crime  family,  or  that  he  is  in  any 
way  connected  with  organized  crime? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Honestly,  when  he  came  to  me,  I  thought  he  was  an 
old  drunk,  to  be  honest  with  you.  [Laughter.] 

Senator  Roth.  I  think  that's  all  the  questions  we  have.  We  thank 
you,  Mr.  McGirt. 

Next,  I'll  ask  Mr.  Certo  a  series  of  questions. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Certo,  you  are  currently  the  co-manager 
of 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Senator,  could  you  wait  until  I  shift  over,  so  I  can 
sit  next  to  my  client? 

Senator  Roth.  I  think  you  can  listen  to  the  question  while  you 
walk  over. 

Mr.  Certo,  are  you  currently  the  co-manager  of  Buddy  McGirt? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  I  am,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  How  long  have  you  served  as  a  manager? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Oh,  since 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  As  best  you  can  recall. 

Mr.  Certissimo  [continuing].  As  best  I  can  recall,  maybe  the  last 
7  years  or  so,  6  years.  I  don't  recall. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  currently  licensed  as  a  boxing  manager 
in  any  State? 


Exhibit  No.  48  appears  on  page  265. 


124 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  Where? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  In  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Nevada. 

Senator  Roth.  Have  you  ever  been  denied  a  boxing  license  in  any 
State  where  you  have  applied? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No. 

Senator  Roth.  In  your  deposition  taken  by  the  Subcommittee 
staff,  you  testified  that  Stuart  Weiner  is  the  co-manager  of  Mr. 
McGirt;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Senator,  again,  could  we  please  have  the  page  and 
line  number? 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  let  me  ask  you 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  You  are  referring  to  his  deposition  testimony,  and 
we  have  a  right  to  know  what  page  and  what  line  you  are  referring 
to. 

Senator  Roth.  Page  39. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  So  is  it  correct  that  you  and  Mr.  Weiner  share  in 
the  management  responsibilities  of  Mr.  McGirt? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Is  it  also  correct  that  you  and  Mr.  Weiner  split 
the  33  Vb  percent  manager's  fee  that's  taken  from  Mr.  McGirt's 
earnings? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  but  it  never  comes  to  that  amount.  It's  a  lot 
less.  My  fighters  always  got  the  better  part  of  the  moneys. 

Senator  Roth.  To  understand  how  this  works,  let  me  use  a  recent 
example.  On  March  6th,  Mr.  McGirt  fought  in  New  York  for  a  mil- 
lion dollar  purse;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  That's  right,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  What  was  the  manager's  share  of  the  March  6th 
fight? 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  To  the  extent  you  know. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  there  is  expense 
that  comes  off  the  top,  right  off  the  top,  and  then  after  that,  it  be- 
comes 33  Vb. 

Senator  Roth.  So  all  the  expenses  are  taken  out  of  Buddy's  purse 
first;  is  that  true? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Off  the  top. 

Senator  Roth.  Off  the  top? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Of  the  top  of  the  million  dollars. 

Senator  Roth.  How  much  did  that  amount  to,  roughly? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  forget  the  full  amount.  I  don't  think  we  got  a 
complete  rundown.  Stuart  is  still  working  on  that  because  those 
bills  are  still  coming  in  from  credit  cards  or  whatever.  But  anyhow, 
it's  all  there.  Oh — how  much  of  the  money — I  would  say  maybe 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Just  an  approximation. 

Mr.  Certissimo  [continuing].  I  really  don't  know.  Maybe  $200,000, 
$250,000. 

Senator  Roth.  Expenses  ran  up  to  $200,000,  $250,000? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  What  was  the  nature  of  those  expenses? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Well,  first  of  all,  let's  go  back  to  my  counselor, 
Mr.  D'Chiara.  There  was  a  time  that  negotiations  were  sort  of 
broken  down  with  HBO,  and  maybe  there  was  a  little  strain  taking 


125 

place,  and  I  just  ran  out  of  gas.  At  a  function  where  I  was  being 
honored  as  manager  of  the  year,  that's  the  very  first  time  I  met 
Mr.  D'Chiara,  and  he  calmed  me  down  or  whatever.  And  he  said, 
"Look,  let  me  see  if  I  can  still  make  this  particular  fight,"  that 
they  had  in  mind,  and  I  agreed  for  his  service  if  he  was  able  to  put 
the 

Senator  Roth.  Time  is  running  out,  and  I'd  like  to  ask  a  more 
specific  question  as  to  what  expenses  were  involved. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Oh,  OK.  Yes,  I  can  break  it  down.  OK.  Mr. 
D'Chiara  got  $50,000.  Mr.  John  Williams  got  $25,000.  He's  a  fellow 
that  works  with  me  in  the  gym,  and  he  is  a  companion  of  Buddy 
McGirt;  he  runs  with  him,  he  sees  that  he  does  the  right  thing 
early  in  the  morning.  And  there's  my  cornermen — they  got  $10,000 
apiece — Mr.  Milano  and  Mr.  Howie  Albert.  And  there  is  the  ex- 
pense of  the  hotels  and  the  eating — it  runs  into  money — sparring 
partners.  It's  all  done  by  check. 

Senator  Roth.  And  all  that  comes  out  of  Buddy's  purse? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  It  all  comes  off  the  top,  yes. 

Senator  Roth.  Off  the  top? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes.  And  if  you  would  see — that's  why  I  can't 
understand — let  me  explain  something,  getting  back  to  the 
checks 

Senator  Roth.  Let  me  go  on  with  the  line  of  questioning. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Anybody  that  worked  for  us,  anybody,  like  our 
cornermen,  they  don't  have  the  capability  of  cashing  a  check — like 
Mr.  Williams,  I  believe,  doesn't  have  the  capability  of  cashing 
maybe  a  $5,000  or  a  $10,000  check — so  we  would  make  out  a  check 
to  his  name,  and  we  would  cash  it  for  him,  and  we  would  deposit 
that  check  in  the  bank.  That's  the  way  we  operated  our  business. 

Senator  Roth.  Now  I'd  like  to  go  back  to  the  line  of  questioning. 
Under  your  current  arrangement,  what  did  you  and  Weiner  receive 
out  of  the  March  6th  fight? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  don't  know.  Stuart  didn't  break  it  down.  But  I 
think  we  got  $126,000  apiece.  I'm  not  too  sure  about  that. 

Senator  Roth.  You  don't  know  specifically? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No,  I  really  don't.  I  didn't  get  the  countdown 
yet. 

Senator  Roth.  As  I  understand  your  deposition  testimony,  on 
page  40,  all  the  money  that  Mr.  McGirt  earns  goes  directly  into  the 
checking  account  of  a  corporation  called  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc.  Is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  That's  right,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  And  do  you  control  this  company? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  I  do. 

Senator  Roth.  And  you  and  Mr.  Weiner  and  Mr.  McGirt  are  paid 
your  shares  of  Mr.  McGirt's  purses  from  this  account;  is  that  cor- 
rect? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  You  testified  at  your  deposition  on  pages  65  and 
112  that  Mr.  Weiner  has  full  check- writing  authority  with  the  Cer- 
tissimo, Inc.  account.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  What  do  you  mean  by  "full  authority"? 

Senator  Roth.  That  he  can  write  a  check. 


126 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Well,  with  my  permission.  In  other  words,  the 
day  of  a  fight,  if  we  have  to  write  a  check  for 

Senator  Roth.  But  the  check  doesn't  require  your  signature,  does 
it? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No;  no,  it  doesn't. 

Senator  Roth.  And  you  also  testified  that  Mr.  Weiner  commonly 
writes  checks  to  himself  on  the  Alfred  Certissimo  account.  Is  that 
correct? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes.  He  would  write  whatever  he  has  coming  to 
him,  part  of  that  33 Vs.  He  has  that  coming  to  him.  He'll  write  a 
check  for  himself,  or  he  will  write  a  check  for  me. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Certo,  you  also  testified  at  your  deposition 
that  Mr.  Weiner  determines  how  to  divide  Buddy  McGirt's  boxing 
earnings  after  a  given  fight.  Is  that  correct?  That's  on  page  65. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No,  that's  not  correct. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  What  line,  Senator?  I'd  like  to  have  the  line  refer- 
ence on  that,  please. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Lines  15  through  17. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  And  where  does  it  say  that  Stuey  Weiner — could 
you  just  show  us  where  you  get  that  from? 

Mr.  Rinzel.  The  answer  was:  "Well,  I  gave  him" — referring  to 
Stuey  Weiner — "the  power  to  sign  checks.  In  other  words,  when  we 
have  a  fight,  he  has  to  pay  the  expenses  for  the  restaurants  or  cor- 
nermen or  whoever  helped  us  out.  If  I'm  not  doing  it,  he  does  it. 
That's  it.  He  makes  out  the  breakdown  maybe  of  Buddy's  purse, 
what  we  get  and  whatever." 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  right,  whether  it's  him  or  me. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  I  think  you  have  mischaracterized  the  deposition 
testimony. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  whether  it's  me  or  Stuey.  I  think  that's 
what  a  partnership  is;  they've  got  to  help  each  other.  So  if  I  can't 
do  it,  it's  Stu  Weiner. 

Senator  Roth.  In  your  deposition,  you  say,  "He  makes  out  the 
breakdown  maybe  of  Buddy's  purse,  what  we  get  and  whatever." 
What  do  you  mean  by  that? 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  If  you  read  the  sentence  before  that,  Senator 

Senator  Roth.  We'll  ask  the  witness  to  respond. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Read  the  whole  thing  in  context.  Start  here. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  OK.  "In  other  words,  what  I'm  trying  to  say, 
when  we  have  a  fight,  he  has  to  pay  the  expense  for  the  restaurant 
or  the  cornermen  or  whatever  help.  If  I'm  not  doing  it,  he  does  it. 
That's  it.  He  makes  out  the  breakdown  of  Buddy's  purse,  what  we 
get  and  whatever."  It's  either  me  or  him.  And  if  he  ever  made  a 
check  more  than  what  it  was  supposed  to  be,  he'd  hear  it. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Certo,  Bobby  Goodman  of  Madison  Square 
Garden  paid  Stu  Weiner  $40,000  in  cash  as  part  of  Mr.  McGirt's 
purse  for  the  Simon  Brown  fight  in  Las  Vegas,  Nevada.  Were  you 
aware  of  that  cash  payment? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes.  What  Bobby  does,  he'll  call  me,  or  whether 
it  is  Pat  Fleming,  assistant  matchmaker — "How  much  cash  do  you 
need?"  And  I  would  say  we  might  need  this  much,  or  we  might 
need  that  much,  because  cornermen  have  to  go  home  with  the 
money — every  amount  of  cash  money  that  we  give  out  is  made  into 


127 

a  check,  and  the  person  signs  it,  and  we  in  turn  deposit  that  in  the 
bank. 

Senator  Roth.  Is  it  common  to  get  payments — in  this  case, 
$40,000— in  cash? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Oh,  yes.  Why  not?  Out  of  $1  million — or,  I  be- 
lieve we  got  $750,000,  $800,000. 

Senator  Roth.  What  was  the  cash  used  for? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Well,  you  had  to  give  moneys  to  the  cornermen, 
sparring  partners — the  hotels,  we  had  no  expense  with  that — my 
own  personal  money,  his  personal  money.  Maybe  we  did  a  little 
gambling  over  there.  It  was  our  money. 

Senator  Roth.  Was  it  training  money? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No,  it  wasn't  training  money.  It  was  moneys 
that  were 

Senator  Roth.  But  you  used  the  money  for  your  personal  gam- 
bling? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No.  I  don't  know  if  I  ever  lost  that  much  to  use 
that  kind  of  money.  But  anyhow,  what  I'm  trying  to  say  is  the 
$40,000,  you're  looking  for  a  breakdown — it's  for  the  cornermen  or 
whoever  we  need  the  money  for.  If  you  add  it  up,  $40,000,  I  believe 
Buddy— I  don't  know  if  you  took  $10,000  or  $15,000,  but  it  is  all  ac- 
countable. In  other  words,  if  we  got  $800,000  for  one  particular 
fight,  and  that's  the  price,  you  would  see  that  amount  deposited  or 
accounted  for  in  the  accounts. 

Senator  Roth.  But  why  would  you  take  this  money  in  cash? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Because  being  in  Vegas  for  2  or  3  weeks,  I'm 
sure  nobody  had  money  after  a  while.  You  might  have  needed  it  to 
go  home  with.  Buddy  always  needs  money.  He  probably,  I  think, 
took  $15,000 — I'm  not  sure.  Do  you  recall? 

Senator  Roth.  So  part  of  the  money  was  used  for  your  expenses? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Not  my  expenses.  In  other  words,  any  moneys  I 
took  out  of  that  $40,000— if  I  took  out  $5,000,  that  was  $5,000  that 
had  to  be  deducted  out  of  my  share  of  the  33  Va  percent. 

Senator  Roth.  But  that  money  could  have  been  used  for  your 
personal  expenses. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  or  whatever. 

Senator  Roth.  Now,  Mr.  Certo,  to  your  knowledge,  is  Mr.  Weiner 
currently  licensed  as  a  boxing  manager  in  any  State? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  In  any  State? 

Senator  Roth.  Yes. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  don't  believe  so,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Isn't  it  true  that  Mr.  Weiner  is  not  involved  in  the 
traditional  activities  of  a  boxing  manager? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  That's  a  good  question.  What  are  the  tradition- 
al? 

Senator  Roth.  What  would  you  say  are  the  traditional  activities? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  To  make  fights,  to  train  the  fighter.  Here's  a 
man  with  one  leg.  We  got  to  be  pretty  friendly,  and  he's  a  decent 
guy.  He  was  the  one  that  brought  me  to  Buddy  McGirt  from  the 
original  time.  I  just  have  a  compassion  for  a  person  like  that. 

Senator  Roth.  My  time  is  up. 

Senator  McCain. 

Senator  McCain.  No  questions. 

Senator  Roth.  Senator  Cohen. 


128 

Senator  Cohen.  Just  one  question,  Mr.  Certo.  The  staff  testified 
earlier,  and  they  have  prepared  a  written  statement  that  indicated 
that  in  the  December  1991  Buddy  McGirt-Simon  Brown  fight  that 
you  and  Buddy  McGirt  signed  two  separate  contracts  with  Robert 
Goodman.  Is  that 

Mr.  Certissimo.  What  do  you  mean  by  two  separate  contracts? 

Senator  Cohen.  Did  you  sign  two  contracts  with  him  concerning 
the  McGirt  fight? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  For  that  one  particular  fight?  No.  Just  one. 

Senator  Cohen.  One  contract. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  As  best  you  recall. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  As  best  I  recall,  I  think  it  was  only  one — one 
Nevada  contract. 

Senator  Cohen.  All  right.  That's  what  I  was  getting  at.  One 
Nevada  contract. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  One  Nevada  contract,  yes. 

Senator  Cohen.  Tell  me  how  that  worked.  The  information  that 
we  had  is  that  you  filed  in  Nevada — a  State  that  prohibits,  as  I  un- 
derstand it,  option  contracting — a  contract  that  gave  McGirt 
$625,000  with  no  option  for  future  fights,  correct? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  OK.  The  original  time  that  we  were  supposed  to 
fight  Simon  Brown,  we  were  down  in  Florida.  After  3  weeks,  I 
think,  the  fight  was  postponed.  We  had  taken  out  $75,000  for  train- 
ing expense,  OK — I  think  it  was  $75,000;  I  don't  remember — and 
then  the  fight  was  postponed.  And  then  the  fight  was  put  on  again, 
I  don't  know,  a  month,  2  months,  whatever.  Whether  we  took  addi- 
tional money,  I  don't  recall.  OK.  Now,  the  fight  took  place,  and  we 
won  the  fight.  Bobby  said  to  me,  "Al,  would  you  mind  if  I  held  back 
$50,000  because  it  would  make  us" — something  with  the  budget — 
"it  would  make  us  look  good  with  Madison  Square  Garden."  He  felt 
that  when  the  fight  was  made  that  they  wanted  $100,000.  We  nego- 
tiated, and  it  went  down  to  $50,000,  and  that's  what  we  agreed 
upon. 

He  said,  "I'll  hold  back  $50,000  for  bookkeeping  purposes,  and 
then  on  your  next  fight,  I  would  give  it  to  you." 

I  said,  "No  problem."  There's  enough  money  there.  I  don't  think 
I  waited  that  long,  though.  I  started  screaming  I  wanted  my 
money,  and  then  we  got  it. 

Senator  Cohen.  What  I  was  really  concerned  about  was  the  con- 
tract that  was  filed  in  Nevada,  Nevada  prohibits  option  contract- 
ing; is  that  right?  I  don't  know.  I'm  asking  you. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  What  do  you  mean  by  "option  contract"? 

Senator  Cohen.  Options  for  future  fights. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No,  I  don't  think  any  State  has  that  law. 

Senator  Cohen.  Nevada  does  not  have  that  prohibition? 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  To  the  best  of  your  knowledge. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  It  could  have  been — I  don't  know. 

Senator  Cohen.  To  the  best  of  your  knowledge. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  really  couldn't  say. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Al's  the  manager,  not  the  promotor.  It's  usually 
the  promoter  that  takes  care  of  that. 

Senator  Cohen.  OK.  He's  in  the  fight  business.  He  knows  more 
than  I  do.  I'm  trying  to  find  out. 


129 

So,  to  your  knowledge,  Nevada  does  not  prohibit  option  contract- 
ing? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  really  couldn't  answer  that  question. 

Senator  Cohen.  OK.  Was  there  a  separate  contract  filed  in  New 
York  which  awarded  McGirt  $625,000  plus  $75,000  in  training  ex- 
penses for  the  Brown  fight? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Yes,  that  was  probably  it. 

Senator  Cohen.  OK.  Did  that  include  any  option,  to  your  knowl- 
edge, on  five  future  McGirt  fights? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  don't  know  what  took  place  there.  If  you  want 
me  to  go  back 

Senator  Cohen.  I  just  want  you  to  tell  me  what  you  know.  I  don't 
want  you  to  speculate. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No,  I  really  don't  know  what  agreement  was 
signed  between  him  and  Don  King,  or  whatever. 

Senator  Cohen.  Or  Mr.  Goodman? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Or  Mr.  Goodman. 

Senator  Cohen.  All  right. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  was  told  there  was,  I  believe,  five  options  he 
would  exercise  if  he  wanted  to.  That's  all — but  I  never  saw  the  con- 
tract. 

Senator  McCain.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  have  one  more  question  for 
Mr.  McGirt. 

Senator  Roth.  Senator  McCain. 

Senator  McCain.  Mr.  McGirt,  you've  made  several  million  dol- 
lars in  your  successful  boxing  career.  I  think  that's  correct,  isn't  it? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Several  million? 

Senator  McCain.  Yes. 

Mr.  McGirt.  I  don't  know.  I  don't  know  where  it's  at  if  I  did. 

Senator  McCain.  Well,  I  guess  that's  the  point  of  my  question. 
Do  you  have  money — and  you  don't  have  to  answer  this  question  if 
you  don't  want  to — but  do  you  have  some  money  saved? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Oh,  most  definitely,  yes. 

Senator  McCain.  So  you  believe  you  have  been  able  to  retain  sig- 
nificant amounts  of  the  money  that  you  have  earned? 

Mr.  McGirt.  Oh,  yes.  What  you  have  to  understand  is  that  I 
watch  my  money  very  carefully.  I'm  cheaper  than  free  rent.  Noth- 
ing comes  by  me  without  me  seeing  it.  If  they  hand  me  a  piece  of 
paper  that  says  "Miscellaneous,"  I  want  to  know  what  "Miscellane- 
ous" means.  You  just  can't  hand  it  to  me  and  say,  "Oh,  Buddy,  this 
is  miscellaneous."  I  want  to  know  what  it  means.  And  they  keep 
track,  and  I  keep  track  of  everything — and  if  I  don't,  my  mother 
does. 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Certo,  are  you  aware  that  Mr.  Weiner  is 
named  as  a  member  of  the  Corozzo  crew  of  the  Gambino  organized 
crime  family  in  an  indictment  handed  down  by  the  Manhattan  dis- 
trict attorney's  office? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  don't  know  who — I  am  not  aware  of  anything 
like  that— Gambino,  Gamschmino,  whoever  these  guys  are.  I  know 
Stuey  as  a  decent  person,  and  that's  as  far  as  I  know  about  Stu 
Weiner.  We  don't  have  any  social  things  going  on,  but  we  are  tight 


130 

when  it  comes  to  Buddy  McGirt;  we  are  totally  in  agreement.  Any- 
thing for  the  better  of  Buddy  McGirt. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  familiar  with  an  individual  named 
Joseph  "Jo Jo"  Corozzo? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Well,  the  very  first  time  that  I  believe  I  met 
Joseph  Corozzo  was  when  we  were  training — I  don't  know  if  it  was 
the  first  or  second  time  we  trained  down  in  Florida.  That  was  the 
very  first  time  I  met  him.  That  was  the  Simon  Brown  fight. 

Senator  Roth.  What  year  was  that? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  That  would  be  1990. 

Senator  Roth.  Nineteen  ninety.  And  who  introduced  you  to  Mr. 
Corozzo? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Ninety-one.  Excuse  me.  That  was  in  1991. 

Senator  Roth.  Nineteen  ninety-one. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Who — what — excuse  me? 

Senator  Roth.  Who  introduced  you  to  Mr.  Corozzo? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Stu  Weiner.  He  introduced  me  as  his  boyhood 
friend;  they  went  to  school  together  or  something — I  don't  know. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  aware  that  Mr.  Corozzo  is  an  alleged  sol- 
dier in  the  Gambino  organized  crime  family? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Did  you  hear  mister  whatever  his  name  is  say 
that  I  was  an  organized  crime  figure,  too? 

Senator  Roth.  Yes.  Would  you  answer 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Roth.  Would  you  answer  my  question,  please? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No,  I  didn't  know  anything  like  that. 

Senator  Roth.  You  are  not  aware  of  that? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  I  am  not  aware  of  it.  I've  seen  it  in  the  papers, 
and  that's  as  far  as  I  know. 

Senator  Roth.  Have  you  and  Mr.  Weiner  ever  discussed  Mr. 
Weiner's  relationship  with  Mr.  Corozzo? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Well,  naturally,  he  talked  about  his  friend,  that 
he  was  a  very  close  friend;  they  grew  up  together. 

Senator  Roth.  Did  Mr.  Weiner's  relationship  with  Mr.  Corozzo 
concern  you? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Not  at  all.  [Pause.]  Why  doesn't  Mr.  Rinzel  ask 
me  the  questions? 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Certo,  have  you  ever  visited  the  Ravenite 
Social  Club? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  denying  ever  having  visited  it? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No,  I  was  never  in  the  place,  no. 

Senator  Roth.  You  were  never  in  the  place? 

Mr.  Certissimo.  No. 

Senator  Roth.  All  right.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Certo. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Can  we  leave  now,  or  do  you  want  us  to  stay? 

Senator  Roth.  Yes.  Mr.  Certo  and  Mr.  McGirt,  if  you  want  to 
leave,  that's  satisfactory. 

Mr.  Certissimo.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  McGirt.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  D'Chiara.  Thank  you,  sirs. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Weiner,  would  you  please  state  your  full 
name? 


131 

Mr.  Weiner.  Stuart  Weiner. 

Senator  Roth.  Would  you  introduce  your  counsel  once  more? 

Mr.  Weiner.  Edwin  Schulman. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Weiner,  are  you  familiar  with  an  individual 
named  Joseph  "Jo Jo"  Corozzo? 

Mr.  Weiner.  At  this  time,  Senator,  there  is  an  indictment  pend- 
ing in  the  State  of  New  York,  naming  me  as  an  unindicted  co-con- 
spirator, alleging  that  I  am  a  member  and/or  associate  of  an  orga- 
nized crime  family. 

Based  upon  this  circumstance,  I  respectfully  refuse  to  answer 
any  further  questions  and  assert  my  Fifth  Amendment  privilege. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  aware  that  Mr.  Corozzo  is  a  soldier  in  the 
Gambino  organized  crime  family? 

Mr.  Weiner.  I  assert  my  Fifth  Amendment. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Weiner,  are  you  currently  the  co-manager, 
along  with  Al  Certo,  of  boxer  James  "Buddy"  McGkt? 

Mr.  Weiner.  I  assert  my  Fifth  Amendment. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Weiner,  are  you  currently  licensed  as  a 
boxing  manager  in  any  State? 

Mr.  Weiner.  I  assert  my  Fifth  Amendment. 

Senator  Roth.  As  I  understand  Mr.  Al  Certo's  testimony,  you  are 
entitled  to  a  15  percent  share  of  Buddy  McGirt's  purse.  Have  you 
ever  made  any  payments  from  Buddy  McGirt's  purses  to  "Jo Jo" 
Corozzo? 

Mr.  Weiner.  I  assert  my  Fifth  Amendment. 

Senator  Roth.  Did  you  ask  Buddy  McGirt  to  attend  the  trial  of 
John  Gotti  as  a  personal  favor  to  you? 

Mr.  Weiner.  I  assert  my  Fifth  Amendment. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Weiner,  do  you  intend  to  invoke  your  Fifth 
Amendment  rights  in  response  to  all  other  questions  here  today? 

Mr.  Weiner.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  we  are  disappointed  that  you  have  not 
chosen  to  answer  our  questions,  but  under  the  circumstances,  you 
are  excused. 

Mr.  Weiner.  Thank  you,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  Our  next  witness  is  Edward  Sciandra.  Mr.  Scian- 
dra,  if  you  would  please  come  forward. 

Mr.  Sciandra,  if  you  would  remain  standing  and  raise  your  right 
hand,  please.  Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  will  give  before  this 
Subcommittee  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Sciandra.  I  do. 

Senator  Roth.  Please  be  seated. 

TESTIMONY  OF  EDWARD  SCIANDRA 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Sciandra,  do  you  have  a  prepared  statement, 
or  a  statement  to  make? 

Mr.  Sciandra.  No,  I  don't  have  a  statement,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Sciandra,  would  you  please  give  us  your  full 
name? 

Mr.  Sciandra.  Edward  Sciandra. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Sciandra,  are  you  a  member  of,  or  have  you 
served  as  acting  boss  of  the  Bufalino  organized  crime  family? 


132 

Mr.  Sciandra.  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds 
that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Sciandra,  Mr.  Gravano's  testimony  indicated 
that  you  at  one  time  owned  a  financial  interest  in  professional 
boxer  James  "Buddy"  McGirt.  Is  this  correct? 

Mr.  Sciandra.  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds 
that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Sciandra,  did  you  acquire  an  interest  in  Mr. 
McGirt  directly  from  Mr.  McGirt  or  through  one  of  his  co-manag- 
ers, Al  Certo  or  Stuart  Weiner? 

Mr.  Sciandra.  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds 
that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Gravano  testified  that  you  and  "JoJo"  Cor- 
ozzo  had  a  dispute  as  to  which  one  of  you  was  entitled  to  an  inter- 
est in  Buddy  McGirt's  earnings.  Is  this  true? 

Mr.  Sciandra.  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds 
that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Gravano  has  identified  a  videotape  of  himself 
leaving  the  Ravenite  Social  Club  with  you  and  Mr.  Corozzo.  Mr. 
Gravano  has  testified  that  the  three  of  you  had  been  discussing  the 
dispute  between  you  and  Mr.  Corozzo  over  Buddy  McGirt's  earn- 
ings. Do  you  recall  this  meeting? 

Mr.  Sciandra.  I  respectfully  decline  to  answer  on  the  grounds 
that  my  answer  may  tend  to  incriminate  me. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Sciandra,  do  you  intend  to  invoke  the  Fifth 
Amendment  to  all  of  the  Subcommittee's  questions? 

Mr.  Sciandra.  Yes,  Your  Honor. 

Senator  Roth.  In  that  case,  you  are  excused  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Sciandra.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Our  next  witness  is  Robert  Goodman.  Mr.  Good- 
man is  vice  president  of  Madison  Square  Garden  Boxing.  I  want  to 
thank  Mr.  Goodman  for  his  willingness  to  assist  the  staff  in  the 
course  of  its  investigation  and  for  his  testimony  here  today.  He 
knows  a  great  deal  about  both  the  promotion  and  broadcasting  of 
boxing  today,  and  we  look  forward  to  his  testimony. 

Mr.  Goodman,  would  you  please  remain  standing  and  raise  your 
right  hand?  Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  will  give  before  this 
Committee  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the 
truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Goodman.  I  do. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you.  Will  you  please  be  seated  and  intro- 
duce your  counsel? 

TESTIMONY  OF  ROBERT  GOODMAN,1  VICE  PRESIDENT,  MADISON 
SQUARE  GARDEN  BOXING;  ACCOMPANIED  BY  KEN  MUNOS, 
GENERAL  COUNSEL  FOR  MADISON  SQUARE  GARDEN 

Mr.  Goodman.  Yes.  With  me  is  Ken  Munos.  He  is  the  general 
counsel  for  Madison  Square  Garden. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  have  a  prepared  statement,  Mr.  Goodman? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Yes,  I  do,  sir.  I  think  everybody  has  a  copy  of  our 
statement  which  we  prepared.  I  intend  to  read  part  of  it. 


1  The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Goodman  appears  on  page  158. 


133 

Senator  Roth.  Please  feel  free  to  summarize,  and  we  will  include 
your  statement  in  the  record  in  its  entirety. 

Mr.  Goodman.  Thank  you. 

My  name  is  Bob  Goodman,  and  I  am  vice  president  and  match- 
maker for  Madison  Square  Garden  Boxing.  Since  we  hosted  our 
first  fight  involving  John  L.  Sullivan  nearly  a  century  ago,  the 
Garden  has  been  an  upstanding  and  conscientious  member  of  the 
boxing  community. 

To  ensure  our  ability  to  continue  to  bring  fights  to  the  people  of 
New  York  City  and  other  places  around  the  world,  we  have  served 
as  a  promoter  of  boxing  events  in  addition  to  our  role  as  a  world 
class  venue  for  boxing  contests. 

We  are  a  promoter  in  the  classic  meaning  of  the  term — we  ar- 
range matches  and  promote  them.  To  facilitate  our  role  in  this  en- 
deavor, we  enter  into  exclusive,  long-term  promotional  agreements 
with  some  fighters.  In  these  contracts,  which  are  common  and  es- 
sential to  the  boxing  industry,  the  promoter  receives  promotional 
rights  while  providing  the  boxer  with  financial  consideration  and 
guaranteed  minimum  purses  with  respect  to  future  bouts.  These 
contracts  benefit  both  the  athletes  and  the  promoters.  They  are 
universally  recognized  as  essential  vehicles  by  which  fighters  are 
able  to  develop  their  skills  in  a  manner  that  will  assure  them  fair 
compensation  while  at  the  same  time  providing  the  promoter  with 
a  fair  opportunity  to  generate  a  return  from  its  risk-intensive  busi- 
ness. 

We  serve  sole  as  a  promoter  and  venue  for  professional  fights. 
Our  relationship  with  boxers  is  arm's-length,  proper,  and  legal. 
None  of  the  concerns  that  have  been  expressed  about  promoter 
conflicts  of  interest  at  previous  hearings  apply  to  Madison  Square 
Garden.  We  do  not  manage,  train,  or  provide  financial  advice  to 
fighters  with  whom  we  deal. 

As  previously  communicated  to  Senator  Roth  by  Robert  Gut- 
kowski,  president  of  Madison  Square  Garden,  my  company  sup- 
ports the  creation  of  a  Federal  Boxing  Commission  to  establish  uni- 
form national  regulations  to  govern  the  sport  of  boxing.1  We  be- 
lieve that  the  establishment  of  uniform  standards  can  help  protect 
the  health  and  safety  of  professional  fighters.  At  the  same  time, 
more  effective  regulation  of  boxing  should  inure  to  the  benefit  of 
the  many  honest  individuals  and  companies  involved  in  boxing  by 
improving  public  confidence  in  the  conduct  of  the  sport. 

Because  our  views  are  similar  to  those  expressed  before  this  Sub- 
committee by  Mr.  Abraham  of  HBO  Sports  and  Mr.  Aresco  of 
ESPN  3  weeks  ago,  we  will  not  cover  the  same  ground  in  the  inter- 
est of  time. 

I  personally  and  Madison  Square  Garden  as  a  company  have  at 
all  times  acted  forthrightly  and  sought  in  good  faith  to  fully 
comply  with  all  applicable  regulatory  provisions  of  the  various 
States  in  which  we  promote  fights.  We  have  also  cooperated  fully 
with  this  Subcommittee  and  hope  we  have  assisted  your  investiga- 
tion. 


1  Exhibit  No.  24  is  retained  in  the  files  of  the  Subcommittee. 


134 

I  need  not  repeat  the  specific  items  in  my  statement,  which  I  be- 
lieve you  have,  regarding  Buddy  McGirt.  I  am  prepared  to  answer 
any  questions  that  you  may  have  concerning  that. 

Let  me  just  for  the  record  note  that  I  have  been  in  boxing  for 
many  years — all  my  life,  I  have  been  a  boxing  degenerate,  so  to 
speak,  with  my  dad  being  in  boxing.  I  was  brought  up  in  the  train- 
ing camps  with  the  greats  like  Joe  Louis  and  Ray  Robinson  and 
Marcel  Surdan.  I  truly  love  the  sport.  The  sport  is  my  life,  it  is  my 
business,  and  I  am  prepared  to  answer  your  questions. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Goodman. 

As  you  pointed  out,  I  have  received  a  letter  from  Robert  M.  Gut- 
kowski,  president  and  chief  executive  officer  of  Madison  Square 
Garden,  in  which  he  endorses  the  need  for  a  Federal  Boxing  Com- 
mission. 

Let  me  ask  you  this,  Mr.  Goodman.  As  one  who,  as  you  say,  loves 
the  sport  and  is  as  much  involved  as  anyone,  why  do  you  think 
boxing  has  been  unable  to  regulate  itself  as  other  sports  do?  Do  you 
believe  a  Federal  commission  can  work  with  the  State  commissions 
to  improve  the  regulation  of  boxing? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Well,  Mr.  Roth,  something  that  is  vitally  needed 
in  the  sport  of  boxing  today  is  uniformity — certainly,  within  the 
regulations  and  rules  of  the  sport,  within  the  medical  standards, 
within  the  cooperation  and  reciprocation  between  States,  the  forms 
of  proper  identification  and  boxing  passports.  And  it  has  been  tried 
by  many  others  before,  and  we  can't  even  get  some  of  the  States  to 
cooperate  with  each  other,  no  less  cooperate  as  a  Nation  for  the 
good  of  the  sport.  So  I  think  this  is  direly  needed  in  our  sport 
today,  and  welcome  by  most  of  the  people  who  really  care  about 
the  sport. 

I  don't  know  what  we  can  do  regarding  the  world  bodies  of 
boxing,  the  sanctioning  bodies  of  boxing,  because  we  are  proposing 
a  national  organization.  That  would  have  to  be  something  that 
could  be  worked  out.  There  are  pros  and  cons  on  the  sanctioning 
bodies.  Certainly,  world  bodies  need  some  form  of  legislation  and 
some  rules  and  regulations  and  some  form  of  rating  system  in 
order  to  move  their  way  up  the  line  and  become  a  champion.  But  I 
am  all  for  and  am  willing  to  participate  in  any  of  your  efforts  to 
form  a  national  commission.  I  have  had  some  meetings  with  Con- 
gressman Richardson  on  the  same  subject. 

Senator  Roth.  I  appreciate  your  interest  and  willingness  to  assist 
in  the  effort.  Let  me  ask  you  this.  As  you,  I  think,  heard  in  earlier 
testimony,  the  large  purses  are  attracting  an  unsavory  element.  Do 
you  think  a  commission  could  be  helpful  in  addressing  this  and 
other  problems? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Absolutely — certainly  with  regard  to  fights  held 
in  the  United  States. 

Senator  Roth.  You  mentioned  the  international  organizations. 
Let  me  ask  you  this.  In  boxing,  particularly  due  to  the  importance 
of  U.S.-based  television  revenues,  won't  that  give  us  some  handle 
on  regulating  these  international  bodies  as  well? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Well,  it  may,  but  for  an  example,  today,  with  the 
exception  of  maybe  HBO  and  Showtime  and  some  rare  pay-per- 
view  events,  the  television  market  is  much  greater  outside  the 
United  States  than  it  is  here  in  the  United  States  today. 


135 

I  just  did  a  world  championship  fight  involving  one  of  my  other 
champions,  Tracy  Patterson,  the  son  of  Floyd  Patterson,  on  ABC.  It 
was  a  wonderful  fight,  a  wonderful  fight,  in  Poughkeepsie,  New 
York,  on  the  day  of  a  blizzard.  People  showed  up,  and  ABC  raved 
about  the  event,  and  yet  our  entire  fee  from  ABC  television,  which 
was  a  nationally-televised  event,  was  only  $75,000  or  $76,500. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  put  together  world  championship  fights  with 
that  kind  of  money  coming  from  network  television,  who  also  do 
far  too  few  fights  today.  Very  rarely  is  network  television  now 
doing  fights. 

But  overseas,  if  I  chose  to  take  Tracy  Patterson  overseas  to 
defend  his  title  in  France  or  Italy  or  maybe  to  the  Orient,  Tracy 
Patterson  might  receive  a  purse  of  $175,000  to  $200,000,  because 
television 

Senator  McCain.  Why  didn't  you? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Because  Tracy  chose  not  to.  He  went  over  to 
defend  his  title  in  France,  retained  his  title  on  a  draw,  but  he  felt 
very  uncomfortable  being  away  from  home  and  asked  me  to  please 
try  and  work  it  out  with  him  to  put  his  next  fight  here.  We  did 
that,  and  I  sat  down  with  Tracy  and  Floyd,  and  we  made  Tracy  a 
partner  in  promotion  and  tried  to  maximize  his  revenues — in  his 
home  town  of  Poughkeepsie;  it  is  very  close  to  his  home. 

Senator  Roth.  Senator  McCain. 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  agree  with  you, 
the  Patterson  fight  was  one  of  the  best  that  I  have  seen  in  a  very 
long  time — in  a  very,  very  long  time — on  network  television. 

Mr.  Goodman.  Thank  you. 

Senator  McCain.  Someday,  you  can  come  back,  and  we  can  dis- 
cuss the  impact  on  the  American  people  of  having  to  "pay-per- 
view"  many  of  these  very  outstanding  fights — but  that's  an  issue 
for  another  day. 

Did  you  not  know  that  there  was  a  regulation  in  Nevada  that 
prohibited  the  so-called  option  contract? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Well,  regarding  the  option  contract,  first  of  all,  I 
am  of  the  position  that  we  have  entered  into  an  exclusive  promo- 
tional agreement  with  James  "Buddy"  McGirt,  going  back  some  6 
or  7  years  ago,  and  it's  a  long-term  agreement,  and  we  have  since 
renewed  it  2  or  3  times. 

It  is  generally  known  throughout  the  business,  including  in  the 
State  of  Nevada,  that  all  boxers  who  fight  major  fights  and  all 
champions  who  defend  titles  in  the  State  of  Nevada  have  option 
contracts  or  long-term  agreements  with  somebody  or  with  some 
promoter.  It  is  just  a  standard  business  practice  that  everyone  is 
aware  of.  I  have  promoted  events  in  the  State  of  Nevada,  and  they 
license  me,  and  I  am  still  a  member  in  good  standing  in  the  State 
of  Nevada.  And  that  was  just  one  event  that  we  were  doing  in 
Nevada.  If  that  meant  that  we  were  in  violation,  then  it  would 
appear  that  if  Buddy  McGirt  were  offered  a  fight  in  the  State  of 
Nevada,  I  would  have  to  say,  "Gee,  Buddy,  we're  going  to  fight  in 
Nevada.  I  have  to  break  our  contract,  and  we  are  no  longer  exclu- 
sively involved  with  each  other  before  we  can  fight" — and  that's  lu- 
dicrous, that's  absurd. 

Senator  McCain.  But  Mr.  Goodman,  it  really  didn't  happen  that 
way.  My  understanding  from  your  statement  is  that  you  did  have  a 


136 

long-term  contract  with  him.  You  were  in  Nevada,  and  according 
to  you— and  I  am  very  curious  about  how  these  pressures  were 
brought  to  bear— "Don  King  made  repeated  requests  for  evidence 
that  MSG  had  the  right  to  promote,  and  thereby  to  grant  co-promo- 
tion rights,  to  Mr.  McGirt's  next  five  matches.  In  the  hectic  days, 
and  under  the  intense  pressure  of  pre-fight  activities,  I  decided  that 
the  five-bout  provision  in  the  New  York  contract  should  be  entered 
into  with  the  thought  that  it  could  be  shown  to  Mr.  King  and  thus 
allay  his  concerns." 

You  already  had  a  contract  with  Mr.  McGirt,  right,  a  long-term 
contract  with  him? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Yes,  I  had  a  long-term  promotional  agreement. 

Senator  McCain.  So  you  signed  another  one. 

Mr.  Goodman.  King  had  asked  me  on  repeated  occasions  to  show 
him  where  he  was  protected  with  his  five  option  bouts.  Even 
though  Don  King  and  I  had  a  contract,  the  nature  of  the  promo- 
tional agreement  between  Buddy  McGirt  and  myself  was  none  of 
Don  King's  business. 

Senator  McCain.  Do  you  mean  you  couldn't  just  say  to  Mr.  King, 
"Look,  I've  got  a  contract.  We're  having  a  fight.  Take  a  hike"? 

Mr.  Goodman.  That's  what  I  eventually  did,  Mr.  McCain, 
and 

Senator  McCain.  No,  you  didn't.  You  signed  another  contract. 

Mr.  Goodman.  I  signed  the  contract  with  Buddy  McGirt  and  Al 
Certo  and  decided  at  the  zero  hour  that  I  didn't  have  to  do  this;  I 
shouldn't  have  done  it.  I  didn't  present  it  to  Mr.  King,  didn't  show 
him  the  contract.  It  remained  in  our  file.  That's  why 

Senator  McCain.  But  the  fact  is  you  did  sign  another  contract. 

Mr.  Goodman.  I  did  sign  a  contract,  yes,  and  I  did  not  file  it  with 
anybody. 

Senator  McCain.  So  frankly,  Mr.  Goodman,  there  is  a  difference 
between  having  a  so-called  option  contract  that's  ongoing  when  a 
fighter  fights  in  the  State  of  Nevada,  and  another  thing  to  have  a 
contract  and  then  sign  another  contract 

Mr.  Goodman.  I  still  didn't  believe  that  this  violated  Nevada 
law,  because  we  were  concerned  with  one  particular  fight. 

Senator  McCain.  Have  you  found  out  since  that  it  was  in  viola- 
tion? 

Mr.  Goodman.  No.  My  position  is  that  no,  I  don't  believe  that 
violates  Nevada  law. 

Senator  McCain.  I  think  we  could  get  you  someone  from  the 
State  of  Nevada  who  would  say  that  it  is.  But  let  me  delve  a  little 
deeper  here. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  an  incredible  display  of  power  and  in- 
fluence on  the  part  of  Mr.  King  that  would  somehow  motivate  you 
to  take  an  action  of  this  nature.  Can  you  describe  a  little  bit  the 
kind  of  power  that  Mr.  King  has  in  the  boxing  business? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Mr.  King  does  wield  a  great  deal  of  power  in  the 
boxing  business,  that's  true.  As  you  are  aware,  I  did  work  for  Mr. 
King  for  a  while.  But  the  bottom  line  is  I  didn't  ever  show  Mr. 
King  that  contract.  I  chose  not  to.  I  felt  that  the  long-term  promo- 
tional agreement  that  we  had  with  Mr.  McGirt  was  enough,  and  he 
would  have  to  accept  that,  and  my  contract  with  Don  King  Produc- 
tion, where  I  guaranteed  the  services  of  McGirt's  next  five  fights 


137 

that  I  would  promote  with  Mr.  King,  was  sufficient,  and  I  never 
gave  Mr.  King  a  copy  of  the  other  contract. 

Senator  McCain.  Mr.  Goodman,  I  don't  mean  to  belabor  the 
issue,  but  according  to  the  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission  Reg- 
ulations and  Statutes,  467.112,  "Contract  between  Promoter  and 
Boxer,"  No.  3,  "A  contract  which  provides  that  a  boxer  must  fight 
exclusively  for  one  promoter  or  at  his  option  is  prohibited."  I  think 
the  regulations  are  fairly  clear  there. 

Reading  from  your  statement,  you  said,  "I  decided  that  the  five- 
bout  provision  in  the  New  York  contract  should  be  entered  into 
with  the  thought  that  it  could  be  shown  to  Mr.  King  and  thus  allay 
his  concerns.  After  executing  the  New  York  contract,  I  realized 
that  as  a  means  of  addressing  Mr.  King's  concerns,  it  served  no 
purpose,  in  view  of  our  long-term  promotional  agreement  with 
McGirt." 

Does  that  mean  that  Mr.  King  just  dropped  his  repeated  requests 
for  evidence? 

Mr.  Goodman.  No.  First  of  all,  Mr.  King  had  only  come  in  for  a 
press  conference  and  then  ran  off  again  to  some  other  site  un- 
known, and  we  had  a  few  words,  and  King  asked  me  about  the  five 
options,  and  I  just  said,  "Don,  I  have  an  exclusive  promotional 
agreement  with  Buddy  McGirt  that  covers  more  than  five  bouts, 
and  that's  enough.  I  have  guaranteed  his  services." 

Senator  McCain.  But  in  your  statement,  Mr.  Goodman,  you  say, 
"Don  King  made  repeated  requests  for  evidence  that  MSG  had  the 
right  to  promote,  and  thereby  to  grant  co-promotion  rights,  to  Mr. 
McGirt's  next  five  matches." 

Mr.  Goodman.  Well,  I  just  didn't  show  him  that. 

Senator  McCain.  Did  he  make  repeated  requests? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Yes. 

Senator  McCain.  Had  you  heard  of  Mr.  McGirt's  injury  before 
the  fight  that  he  had  with  Mr.  Whitaker? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Before  the 

Senator  McCain.  Rumors  that  Mr.  McGirt  had 

Mr.  Goodman.  Before  the  Leone  fight,  or 

Senator  McCain.  Before  the  Whitaker  fight. 

Mr.  Goodman.  Yes,  yes,  yes.  He  had  fought  a  fight  for  us  in  a 
mandatory  defense  with  Genero  Leone,  where  his  left  arm  was 
very  bad,  and  we  at  first  tried  to — the  Whitaker  fight  was  already 
made — and  we  sat  down  with  HBO  trying  to  look  for  an  alternative 
date  immediately  following  the  Leone  fight,  before  we  ever  held  a 
press  conference  to  announce  the  Whitaker  fight,  and  we  had  sent 
Buddy  for  an  MRI,  and  the  MRI  came  back  negative  and  that  there 
was  no  tear  and  that  it  was  tendinitis.  Even  then,  we  still  tried  to 
come  up  with  a  later  date  with  HBO. 

I  went  to  the  workout  on  a  couple  of  occasions,  and  Buddy 
McGirt  exhibited  the  fact  that  he  could  throw  his  left  hand,  his  left 
hook.  And  with  the  pads  on — and  I  think  I  was  even  quoted  in 
Mike  Katz'  story  in  the  New  York  Daily  News,  who  happened  to  be 
at  the  gym  that  day  in  Jersey  City — when  the  trainer  had  the  pads, 
which  are  catch  mitts,  and  he  was  letting  McGirt  go  through  com- 
binations on  the  catch  mitts,  and  he  started  really  kicking  with 
that  left  hook,  and  there  was  a  snap  and  a  pop,  and  it  looked  like 


138 

the  McGirt  of  old,  and  out  of  exuberance,  I  just  yelled,  "Hallelu- 
jah." And  Katz  had  that  in  the  paper. 

But  we  didn't  stop  at  that.  We  asked  Buddy  to  take  another  MRI. 
He  was  consulting  with  two  doctors  plus  a  chiropractor  and  a 
sports  therapist.  And  every  day,  he  went  through  his  paces,  and  he 
didn't  deter  from  the  task  at  hand.  And  I  had  seen  some  of  the 
work  he  was  doing,  tossing  balls  around  and  throwing  things,  and 
Seth  Abraham  of  HBO  called  me,  and  he  said,  "Bobby,  really,  how 
is  Buddy's  shoulder  coming  along?  I  want  to  make  sure  it's  OK." 
And  I  said,  "So  do  I." 

Al  Certo  and  I  had  talked  repeatedly  about  it,  and  I  told  Al  that 
if  Buddy's  shoulder  was  not  at  a  point  where  he  could  throw  a  left 
hook  that  I  did  not  want  to  go  through  with  the  fight.  The  title  was 
too  important,  and  I  said  we  will  find  another  date  for  the  fight, 
and  if  Whitaker  goes  away,  so  be  it;  we  still  have  the  world  cham- 
pionship, and  maybe  we  can  seek  a  Chavez  fight  at  the  time.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  Don  King  had  called  at  one  point  and  said  if  you 
pull  out  of  the  fight,  maybe  we  can  talk  about  Chavez. 

We  asked  the  doctors  to  follow  it  closely.  New  York  State  Athlet- 
ic Commission  chairman  Randy  Gordon  called  me  and  asked  if  he 
could  have  Dr.  Barry  Jordan,  his  chief  physician,  go  with  him  to 
examine  McGirt  extensively.  This  was  about  10  days  or  so  before 
the  fight.  We  had  our  assistant  in  the  office,  my  assistant,  Carl 
Miretti,  take  them  to  McGirt's  gym,  where  Dr.  Jordan  went 
through  some  extensive  pressure-type  tests  with  McGirt  and  ma- 
nipulated the  shoulder  and  watched  him  work,  and  he  said  that  he 
felt  it  was  a  green  light.  He  called  me  back,  and  he  said,  "Listen, 
we've  done  everything  we  could  do  to  his  shoulder  to  see  if  he  could 
use  it,  and  we  think  it's  100  percent." 

Senator  McCain.  But  the  fact  is  that  his  shoulder  was  not  well, 
and  the  fact  is  that  he  fought  most  of  that  fight  with  one  hand. 

Mr.  Goodman.  Absolutely. 

Senator  McCain.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Goodman. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Roth.  I'm  going  to  call  on  Mr.  Rinzel  to  ask  some  ques- 
tions. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Mr.  Goodman,  I  want  to  ask  some  questions  about 
the  $40,000  cash  payment  after  the  McGirt-Simon  Brown  fight  on 
November  28th,  1991  in  Las  Vegas.  You  did  provide  to  us  a  copy  of 
an  undated  memorandum  from  you  to  Al  Certo,  as  I  understand  it, 
saying  that  you  had  provided  $40,000  in  cash  to  Stu  Weiner  and 
that  you  had  him  sign  a  receipt  indicating  that  it  was  part  of 
Buddy  McGirt's  purse;  is  that  correct?  1 

Mr.  Goodman.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Why  did  you  provide  that  $40,000  in  cash,  and  how 
did  that  work? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Well,  as  a  matter  of  form  throughout  our  bouts 
not  only  with  Buddy  McGirt,  but  with  the  other  fighters,  it  is 
common,  and  it  is  very  common  in  the  business,  for  them  to  ask  for 
a  certain  amount  of  the  purse  to  be  paid  in  cash,  because  many  of 
the  people  who  work  with  them — for  example,  sparring  partners, 


1  Exhibit  No.  33e  appears  on  page  266. 


139 

trainers,  cut  men — and  tip  money  to  leave  the  hotel — many  of  the 
people  who  have  been  away  from  home  for  months,  maybe  2 
months  at  a  time,  needed  some  cash  to  go  home  with,  and  they 
wanted  to  be  able  to  cash  their  checks  for  them.  And  it  has  just 
been  something  that  we  felt  was  always  something  we  would  try 
and  accommodate  them  with,  and  in  this  case,  we  did. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Well,  at  one  point  you  provided  Subcommittee  staff 
with  a  Madison  Square  Garden  check  made  out  to  Al  Certissimo, 
Inc. 

Mr.  Goodman.  Correct. 

Mr.  Rinzel  [continuing].  For  $40,000  and  you  said  that  it  was  the 
receipt  for  the  payment.  But  it  turns  out  apparently,  that  check 
was  never  negotiated.  What  happened?  Where  is  the  receipt?  x 

Mr.  Goodman.  Well,  what  we  did  with  the  $40,000  check  made 
out  to  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc. — and  at  the  time,  Madison  Square 
Garden  Boxing  did  not  have  our  own  checking  account,  which  we 
do  now — but  if  we  were  in  Las  Vegas,  and  we  were  in  a  series  of 
fights,  we  used  to  have  to  write  a  memo  and  fax  it  back  to  our  ac- 
counting department,  who  would  then  try  to  cut  checks  and  send 
checks  back  to  us  Federal  Express.  And  when  the  checks  came 
back  in  as  we  asked  them  to  cut  them  out,  the  check  was  made 
out — the  $40,000  portion  which  we  asked  for  in  cash — was  made 
out  to  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  But  that  check  was  never  processed.  It  is  a  nullity. 

Mr.  Goodman.  No.  The  check  was  never  processed. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  So  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  purse  payment. 

Mr.  Goodman.  What  we  did,  we  still  had  a  payment  coming  from 
Don  King  Productions  of  $750,000.  He  had  advanced  $50,000  upon 
the  signing  of  the  agreement.  We  asked  Don  King  if  he — or  his 
comptroller  or  his  accountant — if  he  could  make  one  check  out  for 
$710,000  and  the  other  check  out  to  us  for  $40,000,  which  we  then 
cashed  at  the  hotel.  And  I  asked  Stu  Weiner  to  endorse  the  back  of 
the  Alfred  Certissimo  check  and  give  it  back  to  me,  which  I 
brought  back  to  my  accounting  department,  and  they  voided  it  out, 
and  we  never  cashed  that  check. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  OK.  So  you  physically  gave  $40,000  from  a  Don  King 
check  to  Stu  Weiner 

Mr.  Goodman.  Correct. 

Mr.  Rinzel  [continuing].  In  Las  Vegas,  Nevada 

Mr.  Goodman.  Correct. 

Mr.  Rinzel  [continuing].  At  the  Mirage  Hotel? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Correct. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  And  that  was  part  of  the  purse? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Correct. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  In  Nevada,  all  purses  must  pass  from  the  promoter 
to  the  commission  representative  to  the  fighter,  to  ensure  that  the 
fighter  isn't  cheated  out  of  any  of  his  purse;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Correct. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  When  we  asked  the  Nevada  Commission,  they  said 
they'd  never  heard  about  any  $40,000  cash  payment  in  this  fight  or 
any  other  fight,  and  they  didn't  like  cash  payments  and  basically 


1  Exhibit  No.  33h  appears  on  page  257. 


140 

did  not  allow  them.  How  did  you  get  around  that?  How  did  you  pay 
part  of  a  purse  in  $40,000  in  cash,  and  the  Nevada  Commission  not 
know  anything  about  it? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Well,  I  would  have  to  look  back  at  my  records  to 
see  how  the  breakdown  was.  Don  King  was  the  promoter  of  the 
fight  in  that  particular  instance,  so  I  would  think  that  we  wrote 
the  Commission  a  letter,  asking  permission  first  of  all  to  have  the 
checks  made  out  to  Alfred  Certissimo,  Inc. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Buddy  McGirt  did  write  such  a  letter  to  the  Commis- 
sion. 

Mr.  Goodman.  OK,  which  would  have  to  be  done.  I'd  have  to  go 
back  and  look  at  the  checks  and  see 

Mr.  Rinzel.  I  am  curious  as  to  how  a  purse,  which  under  the 
Nevada  contract  was  $625,000,  and  presumably  the  Nevada  Com- 
mission got  that  full  purse  from  you. 

Mr.  Goodman.  Six  hundred  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  was  the 
full  purse  that  was  coming  to  Buddy  McGirt. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Right.  And  you  took  $40,000  of  that  in  cash  and  gave 
it  to  Stu  Weiner;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Well,  I  don't  recall  exactly  how  the  breakdown 
was.  I'd  have  to  see  it. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Well,  it  doesn't  matter  exactly  how  the  breakdown 
was.  The  fact  is  that  $40,000  in  cash  was  given  to  Stu  Weiner,  not 
to  Buddy  McGirt,  by  you  personally,  but  the  Nevada  Commission 
doesn't  know  anything  about  it.  How  did  that  happen? 

Mr.  Goodman.  I  just  don't  recall.  I  know  by  way  of  payment  in 
Nevada,  the  Commission  usually  pays  the  boxer,  so- 

Mr.  Rinzel.  The  Commission  always  pays  the  boxer.  That's  part 
of  the  Nevada  regulations.  They  have  to  pay  the  boxer. 

Mr.  Goodman.  Oh.  I  don't  recall  that. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Mr.  Certo  testified  that  cash  payments  are  a  regular 
feature  of  his  contracts  with  you;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Goodman.  No,  it's  not  a  part  of  a  contract,  but  it's  a  part  of 
a  regular  way  of  doing  business  when  people  have  been  training  for 
a  major  fight  for  a  long  time,  that  they  request  a  certain  amount 
in  cash,  and  it  is  done  by  most  of  the  promoters.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  in  Las  Vegas  in  the  past — and  it  was  one  of  the  few  States 
where  we  could  do  it  because  of  the  gaming  industry — the  checks, 
with  proper  i.d.,  could  be  taken  down  to  the  casino  cage  after  a 
fight  and  cashed  at  the  casino  cage. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Well,  that  would  be  a  check,  though.  We're  talking 
about  cash. 

Mr.  Goodman.  Yes.  Well,  they  wouldn't  cash  a  corporate  check, 
is  what  I'm  saying  when  I  say  they  made  special  arrangements. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  I  don't  have  any  further  questions. 

Senator  Roth.  Now,  you  are  Buddy  McGirt's  promoter,  and  we  of 
course  have  heard  testimony  from  Mr.  Gravano  that  a  member  of 
the  Gambino  organized  crime  family  owned  part  of  Mr.  McGirt's 
contract.  Were  you  aware  of  this  prior  to  this  hearing? 

Mr.  Goodman.  No.  I  have  never  heard  that  until  today. 

Senator  Roth.  As  Mr.  McGirt's  promoter,  you  do  business  with 
his  co-managers  Al  Certo  and  Mr.  Weiner;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Goodman.  That's  correct. 


141 

Senator  Roth.  And  you  heard  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Gravano  and 
staff  regarding  Mr.  Certo's  and  Mr.  Weiner's  ties  to  organized 
crime.  Were  you  aware  of  these  connections  prior  to  this  hearing? 

Mr.  Goodman.  No,  I  am  not. 

Senator  Roth.  If  you  had  been  aware  of  Mr.  Certo's  and  Mr. 
Weiner's  organized  crime  connections  and  the  fact  that  part  of  Mr. 
McGirt's  contract  was  owned  by  a  member  of  the  Gambino  crime 
family,  would  your  employer,  Madison  Square  Garden  Boxing,  have 
entered  into  a  promotional  contract  with  these  people? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Absolutely  not. 

Senator  Roth.  What  steps  can  we  take  short  of  a  Federal  Boxing 
Commission  to  correct  this  situation?  Do  you  have  any  suggestions? 

Mr.  Goodman.  Well,  I  would  have  to  think  that  some  proof 
would  have  to  be  brought  up,  or  some  indication  that  these  allega- 
tions are  in  fact  true.  And  if  the  allegations  are  true,  then  I  would 
have  to  take  a  step  back  and  rethink  my  relationship  with  Messrs. 
Certo  and  Weiner. 

Senator  Roth.  John,  do  you  have  any  more  questions? 

Senator  McCain.  No. 

Senator  Roth.  Thank  you  for  being  here  today,  Mr.  Goodman. 

Mr.  Goodman.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Roth.  Our  next  two  witnesses  are  Iran  Barkley  and 
Leonard  Minuto. 

Is  Mr.  Barkley  here? 

TESTIMONY  OF  MARK  TUOHEY,  ATTORNEY,  REED,  SMITH,  SHAW 

AND  MCCLAY 

Mr.  Tuohey.  He  is  not,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  his  attorney? 

Mr.  Tuohey.  Yes,  Senator.  For  the  record,  my  name  is  Mark 
Tuohey.  I  am  a  member  of  the  firm  of  Reed,  Smith,  Shaw  and 
McClay,  and  I  am  Mr.  Barkley's  attorney. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Tuohey,  did  you  accept  service  of  a  subpoena 
on  behalf  of  Mr.  Barkley? 

Mr.  Tuohey.  I  did,  Mr.  Chairman.  In  conversation  with  Mr. 
Rinzel,  I  believe  in  March,  I  volunteered  to  accept  service.  Mr. 
Rinzel  and  I  go  back  some  time  to  the  Department  of  Justice  to- 
gether, and  together  with  Ms.  Hill,  I  have  had  a  number  of  rela- 
tionships with  them.  I  did  agree  to  accept  service,  and  I  communi- 
cated that  to  Mr.  Barkley. 

I  will  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  am  at  a  loss  as  well.  Mr.  Barkley 
was  cooperative  and  has  been  cooperative  before  this  Committee. 
He  testified  fully  at  deposition. 

I  talked  to  him — I  actually  received  the  subpoena  from  Mr.  Rin- 
zel's  office  on  March  18th.  I  was  not  in  Washington  that  week;  my 
father  passed  away.  But  my  secretary  talked  to  Mr.  Barkley,  and 
then  I  talked  to  Mr.  Barkley,  and  he  at  all  times  has  indicated  to 
me  his  willingness  to  continue  to  be  cooperative  with  this  Commit- 
tee. 

I  am  at  a  loss,  Senator  Roth,  and  I  can  only  assume — and  it  is  an 
assumption — I  can  only  assume  that  he  may  be  ill;  I  know  he  was 
moving  this  week  with  his  fiancee.  I  have  tried  to  reach  him  today, 
and  I  have  been  unsuccessful. 


142 

Senator  Roth.  When  were  you  last  in  contact  with  him? 

Mr.  Tuohey.  I  believe  last  Wednesday,  Senator  Roth.  But  there 
have  been  two  conversations. 

Senator  Roth.  And  Mr.  Barkley  was  aware  of  this  hearing. 

Mr.  Tuohey.  Aware  and  fully  prepared  to  come  and  testify,  as  he 
did  at  his  deposition,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Roth.  He  in  no  way  indicated  that  he  might  do  other- 
wise? 

Mr.  Tuohey.  Absolutely  not,  no. 

Senator  Roth.  And  what  did  you  try  to  do  to  contact  him  today? 

Mr.  Tuohey.  Well,  I  tried  to  contact  his  mother,  as  well  as  his 
New  York  counsel,  and  it  was  certainly  both  of  their  understand- 
ings that  he  was  coming  to  the  District  of  Columbia  today  to  testi- 
fy. And  as  I  say,  I  have  no  indication,  Mr.  Chairman,  none,  that  he 
would  do  anything  to  frustrate  this  hearing.  And  I  can  tell  you  as  a 
former  United  States  Attorney  and  Department  of  Justice  official,  I 
fully  explained  very  clearly  to  him,  and  I  can  only  assume  that 
something  has  happened  by  way  of  illness  or  otherwise.  I  will  con- 
tinue to  make  attempts,  and  I  can  assure  this  Committee  and  you 
as  Chairman,  Senator  Roth,  that  if  there  is  some  alternative  to  an 
additional  date,  I  will  do  everything  in  my  power,  and  I  believe  he 
will  be  present.  I  just  don't  have  an  answer  for  you  other  than 
that,  Senator  Roth. 

Senator  Roth.  Well,  obviously,  this  is  a  very  serious  matter  to 
the  Subcommittee.  We  do  not  take  lightly  the  failure  of  a  witness, 
particularly  one  that  has  been  subpoenaed,  to  appear  here.  So  that 
we  will  ask  you  to  keep  us  informed  as  to  what  you  learn,  as  it  will 
be  necessary  for  the  Subcommittee  to  decide  what  kind  of  action  to 
take  on  the  basis  of  his  failure  to  appear. 

Mr.  Tuohey.  I  understand,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  will  do  everything  I 
can,  and  I  will  communicate  with  Mr.  Rinzel  and  Ms.  Hill,  and  I 
can  assure  you  that  from  my  background  and  knowledge  of  Mr. 
Barkley,  I  believe  there  will  be  a  legitimate  excuse.  There  is  no 
excuse  for  not  appearing.  I  understand  that,  Mr.  Chairman.  But  I'll 
do  everything  I  can,  and  I  know  my  client  will,  too. 1 

Senator  Roth.  I  guess  the  thing  that's  hard  to  understand  is  if  he 
couldn't  appear  because  of  illness  or  whatever,  why  he  couldn't 
have  advised  you  or  the  Subcommittee. 

Well,  thank  you,  Mr.  Tuohey. 

Mr.  Tuohey.  Mr.  Chairman,  would  you  like  me  to  stay,  or  shall  I 
be  excused? 

Senator  Roth.  You  are  excused,  Mr.  Tuohey. 

Mr.  Tuohey.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Minuto,  if  you  would  please  rise  and  raise 
your  right  hand.  Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  will  give  before 
this  Subcommittee  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Minuto.  I  do. 


1  Subsequent  to  the  hearing,  Iran  Barkley 's  deposition  was  taken  on  April  30,  1993.  The  depo- 
sition appears  as  Exhibit  No.  15  on  page  168. 


143 

TESTIMONY  OF  LEONARD  MINUTO;  ACCOMPANIED  BY  GERARD 
TREANOR  AND  PRESTON  BURTON,  CACHERIS  AND  TREANOR, 
WASHINGTON,  DC,  COUNSEL 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Minuto,  would  you  please  state  your  full 
name? 

Mr.  Minuto.  Leonard  Minuto. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Minuto,  would  you  inform  us  as  to  who  is  ac- 
companying you?  Are  these  your  attorneys? 

Mr.  Treanor.  Mr.  Chairman,  my  name  is  Gerard  Treanor,  and 
with  me  is  my  colleague,  Preston  Burton.  We  are  with  the  law  firm 
of  Cacheris  and  Treanor  in  Washington,  and  we  are  members  of 
the  Bar  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

And  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  request  pursuant  to  Rule  11  of  the 
Rules  of  Procedure  of  this  Subcommittee,  that  because  of  the  dis- 
tracting nature  and  the  personal  comfort  of  the  witness,  that  the 
television  cameras  and  the  lights  illuminating  for  purposes  of  tele- 
vision be  extinguished? 

Senator  Roth.  We  will  continue  to  have  the  television  cameras 
as  we  have  had  for  this  entire  hearing.  This  question  has  been 
raised  in  other  hearings,  and  the  matter  is  up  to  the  Subcommit- 
tee's discretion. 

I  would  say  to  you  that  under  our  rules,  you  are  allowed  to  be 
here  to  advise  Mr.  Minuto,  but  you  are  not  here  as  a  witness.  So 
any  further  advice  should  be  given  to  Mr.  Minuto. 

Mr.  Treanor.  I  appreciate  that.  Thank  you,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Minuto,  Iran  Barkley  has  testified  in  a  deposi- 
tion that  you  served  as  his  advisor,  that  you  typically  received  10 
percent  of  his  boxing  earnings,  and  that  you  received  $100,000  in 
connection  with  Mr.  Barkley's  recent  fight  against  James  Toney.  Is 
all  that  correct? 

Mr.  Minuto.  On  the  advice  of  my  counsel,  I  respectfully  decline 
to  answer  the  question  on  the  basis  of  my  Fifth  Amendment  rights. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Minuto,  if  you  would  pull  the  mike  a  little 
closer;  we  can't  hear  you. 

You  are  currently  not  licensed  in  any  capacity  with  any  State 
boxing  regulatory  body;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Minuto.  On  the  advice  of  my  counsel,  I  respectfully  decline 
to  answer  the  question  on  the  basis  of  my  Fifth  Amendment  rights. 

Senator  Roth.  What  services  do  you  perform  for  Mr.  Barkley  in 
connection  with  his  boxing  career? 

Mr.  Minuto.  On  the  advice  of  my  counsel,  I  respectfully  decline 
to  answer  the  question  on  the  basis  of  my  Fifth  Amendment  rights. 

Senator  Roth.  I  understand  that  you  have  been  arrested  at  least 
seven  times  since  1974  for  alleged  gambling  violations.  Is  that  cor- 
rect? 

Mr.  Minuto.  On  the  advice  of  my  counsel,  I  respectfully  decline 
to  answer  the  question  on  the  basis  of  my  Fifth  Amendment  rights. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Minuto,  Alfonse  D'Arco  was  the  acting  boss  of 
the  Luchese  organized  crime  family  and  is  now  in  Federal  custody. 
He  has  provided  us  with  a  sworn  declaration  that  you  are  an  asso- 
ciate of  the  Joey  Giampa  crew  of  the  Luchese  crime  family.  Is  that 
correct? 


144 

Mr.  Minuto.  On  the  advice  of  my  counsel,  I  respectfully  decline 
to  answer  the  question  on  the  basis  of  my  Fifth  Amendment  rights. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Minuto,  do  you  plan  to  invoke  the  Fifth 
Amendment  to  every  question  that  the  Subcommittee  propounds  to 
you? 

Mr.  Minuto.  Yes,  I  do,  Senator. 

Senator  Roth.  In  that  case,  you  are  excused  at  this  time. 

At  this  time,  we  would  call  forward  Andrew  Licari.  Mr.  Licari,  if 
you  would  continue  to  stand  and  raise  your  right  hand.  Do  you 
swear  the  testimony  you  provide  this  Subcommittee  will  be  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Licari.  I  do. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ANDREW  LICARI;  x  ACCOMPANIED  BY  RICHARD 
A.  RAFANELLO,  SHAIN,  SCHAFFER  &  RAFANELLO,  BERNARDS- 
VILLE,  NEW  JERSEY,  COUNSEL 

Senator  Roth.  Please  be  seated.  I'd  appreciate  it  if  your  counsel 
would  introduce  himself  and  his  firm. 

Mr.  Rafanello.  Richard  A.  Rafanello.  The  name  of  my  firm  is 
Shain,  Schaffer  &  Rafanello,  in  Bernardsville,  New  Jersey,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Licari,  if  you  have  a  statement  and  can  sum- 
marize, we  would  appreciate  that;  in  any  event,  your  statement 
will  be  included  in  the  record  in  its  entirety. 

Mr.  Rafanello.  Senator,  we  submitted  the  statement  for  the 
record.  Mr.  Licari  has  no  need  to  recitate  on  that  statement. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Licari,  you  have  testified  that  you  once  owned 
a  restaurant  with  Sonny  Giglio.  Are  you  aware  that  he  has  been 
identified  in  Federal  testimony  as  a  soldier  in  the  Luchese  crime 
family? 

Mr.  Licari.  I  might  have  read  it,  but  I  don't  know  for  sure. 

Senator  Roth.  Does  this  concern  you? 

Mr.  Licari.  It  doesn't  really  concern  me.  It's  none  of  my  business 
what  he  does. 

Senator  Roth.  Now,  I  understand  from  your  deposition  that  you 
knew  little  about  boxing  prior  to  investing  $300,000  in  Bobby  Czyz, 
and  that  you  also  knew  very  little  about  Bobby  Czyz  as  a  boxer.  Is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Licari.  Would  you  repeat  that,  please? 

Senator  Roth.  I  understand  from  your  deposition  that  you  knew 
little  about  boxing  prior  to  investing  $300,000  in  Bobby  Czyz,  and 
that  you  also  knew  very  little  about  Bobby  Czyz  as  a  boxer.  Is  that 
correct? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes. 

Senator  Roth.  Had  you  ever  seen  Mr.  Czyz  box  before  investing 
$300,000  in  a  percentage  of  his  future  earnings? 

Mr.  Licari.  Not  really,  no,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Licari,  the  statement  you  have  submitted  for 
the  record  indicates  that  Bobby  Czyz  has  paid  you  and  your  part- 
ner $288,277  from  his  boxing  earnings.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 


1  The  prepared  statement  of  Mr.  Licari  appears  on  page  160. 


145 

Senator  Roth.  And  your  statement  indicates  that  you  have 
loaned  Mr.  Czyz  approximately  $80,000  over  the  last  10  years.  Is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  What  interest  did  you  charge? 

Mr.  Licari.  No  interest  at  all. 

Senator  Roth.  No  interest  at  all? 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Is  it  true  that  Bobby  Czyz  still  owes  you  $50,000 
on  these  loans? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Is  the  answer  yes  on  the  $50,000? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  have  any  written  receipts  or  agreements 
for  these  loans? 

Mr.  Licari.  We  have  checks,  yes;  we  have  checks  that  we  gave 
him. 

Senator  Roth.  You  also  assert  that  Bobby  Czyz  owes  you 
$111,000  as  your  percentage  of  his  last  two  fights.  Why  do  you  con- 
tinue to  lend  him  money  at  no  interest  under  these  circumstances? 

Mr.  Licari.  Well,  we  became  friends,  and  he  seemed  to  have 
problems  each  time  that  I  gave  him  money,  and  he  said  after  the 
fight,  he  would  pay  me  back.  And  he'd  gotten  a  couple  of  little 
jackpots. 

Senator  Roth.  Have  you  made  any  other  loans  to  individuals 
such  as  those  you  made  to  Mr.  Czyz? 

Mr.  Licari.  Pardon? 

Senator  Roth.  Have  you  made  other  loans  to  individuals  such  as 
those  you  made  to  Mr.  Czyz? 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  With  no  interest. 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir;  I  don't  charge  interest  to  nobody. 

Senator  Roth.  You  don't  charge  interest  to  anybody. 

Isn't  it  true  that  you  have  in  the  past  made  a  $10,000  loan  to  one 
Joseph  Abate? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Joseph  Abate  was  identified  in  1988  PSI  hearings 
as  a  soldier  in  the  Luchese  crime  family.  Are  you  aware  of  his 
crime  family  connections? 

Mr.  Licari.  I  probably  read  about  it,  but  I  knew  him  all  my  life. 

Senator  Roth.  You  have  known  him  all  your  life? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  And  you've  only  read  about  his  involvement  with 
the  Luchese  crime  family? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  You  have  no  personal  knowledge. 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Alfonse  D'Arco,  former  acting  boss  of  the  Luchese 
crime  family,  described  you  in  an  affidavit  as  a  "loan  shark."  Is 
that  true? 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  What  is  a  "loan  shark"? 

Mr.  Licari.  I  couldn't  tell  you  what  a  "loan  shark"  is,  sir. 


146 

Senator  Roth.  You've  never  had  any  dealing  with  any  "loan 
shark"? 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Isn't  it  true  that  the  so-called  loan  repayments 
made  to  you  by  Bobby  Czyz  are  in  fact  the  interest  due  on  your 
original  $300,000  loan  to  Bobby  Czyz? 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Licari,  are  you  currently  licensed  in  any  ca- 
pacity with  any  State  boxing  commission? 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  I  am  not. 

Senator  Roth.  Have  you  ever  been? 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Is  your  investment  with  Mr.  Czyz  recorded  with 
any  State  boxing  commission? 

Mr.  Licari.  My  investment  with  Mr.  Czyz — I  had  an  attorney, 
and  he  had  an  attorney.  They  drew  up  a  contract,  and  we  signed  it. 
And  I  never  gave  it  a  second  thought.  But  my  attorney  tells  me 
today  that  you  don't  as  an  investor  need  any  type  of  a  license. 

Senator  Roth.  In  any  event,  it  was  not  recorded  with  any  State 
boxing  commission? 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  In  the  statement  you  submitted  for  the  record, 
you  state  that  you  and  your  partner  have  played  no  role  in  Mr. 
Czyz'  boxing  career.  Is  this  correct? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Do  you  have  any  input  with  respect  to  Czyz' 
boxing  career? 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  I  understand  that  Leonard  Pizzolatto,  now  de- 
ceased, was  your  brother-in-law.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  In  an  affidavit  by  Alfonse  D'Arco,  former  acting 
boss  of  the  Luchese  crime  family,  D'Arco  asserts  that  Pizzolatto 
was  a  member  of  the  Luchese  crime  family.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Licari.  Who  are  you  talking  about,  sir? 

Senator  Roth.  Your  brother-in-law,  Leonard  Pizzolatto. 

Mr.  Licari.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  that. 

Senator  Roth.  You  have  no  knowledge  that  he  was  a  member  of 
the  Luchese  crime  family. 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  In  the  same  affidavit  by  Alfonse  D'Arco,  D'Arco 
also  asserts  that  Pizzolatto  brought  you  into  the  Luchese  crime 
family.  Is  this  true? 

Mr.  Licari.  Absolutely  not,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Licari,  are  you  a  member  of  the  Luchese  orga- 
nized crime  family? 

Mr.  Licari.  I  am  not,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  familiar  with  an  Anthony  Accetturo, 
Senior? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  familiar  with  a  Michael  Perna? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  You  already  said  that  you  know  Joe  Abate. 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 


147 

Senator  Roth.  Are  you  familiar  with  a  Michael  and  Marty  Toc- 
cetta? 

Mr.  Licari.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Mr.  Licari,  in  testimony  at  a  1992  Federal  trial  in 
the  Eastern  District  of  New  York,  Alfonse  D'Arco,  the  former 
acting  boss  of  the  Luchese  crime  family,  testified  that  you,  along 
with  the  individuals  that  you  have  just  identified,  are  members  of 
the  Accetturo  crew  of  the  Luchese  crime  family.  Is  this  true? 

Mr.  Licari.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Roth.  Those  are  all  the  questions  we  have,  Mr.  Licari. 

Mr.  Licari.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Roth.  The  record  of  this  hearing  will  be  kept  open  for  30 
days. 

Mr.  Rinzel.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  list  of  exhibits  numbered  1 
through  50  which  I'd  like  to  offer  for  introduction  'at  this  time. 

Senator  Roth.  Without  objection. 

The  Subcommittee  stands  in  recess  subject  to  call  by  the  Chair- 
man. 

[Whereupon,  at  5:40  p.m.,  the  Subcommittee  adjourned.] 


APPENDIX 


Prepared  Statement  of  Dr.  Jordan 

Ladies,  Gentlemen  and  Senators:  My  name  is  Dr.  Barry  Jordan,  I  am  a  board  cer- 
tified neurologist,  actively  involved  in  the  sport  of  boxing  as  a  health  care  provider 
and  medical  researcher.  My  current  positions  include,  Medical  Director  of  the  New 
York  State  Athletic  Commission,  team  physician  for  USA  Boxing,  and  assistant  pro- 
fessor of  neurology  and  public  health  at  Cornell  University  Medical  College.  I  have 
published  several  scientific  articles  on  boxing,  including  a  textbook  entitled  "Medi- 
cal Aspects  of  Boxing." 

Boxing  is  an  inherently  dangerous  sport  that  can  be  made  safer  via  improved 
medical  supervision  and  safety  legislation.  The  mainstay  of  these  improvements  re- 
quire medical  research  to  understand,  help  prevent  and  minimize  brain,  eye,  and 
other  medical  injuries  associated  with  boxing. 

The  major  medical  concern  confronting  boxing  today  is  chronic  brain  injury. 
Chronic  brain  injury  represents  the  cumulative  long-term  effects  and  consequences 
of  professional  boxing  and  is  probably  the  condition  that  afflicts  Muhammad  Ali. 

Approximately  20  percent  of  retired  professional  boxers  experience  chronic  brain 
injury.  Boxers  exhibiting  chronic  brain  injury  may  experience  slurred  speech, 
memory  loss,  personality  changes,  difficulty  with  walking,  and/or  Parkinson's  dis- 
ease. 

Two  important  factors  may  contribute  to  developing  chronic  brain  injury.  A  long 
exposure  to  boxing  or  a  long  duration  of  career  may  increase  the  risk  of  chronic 
brain  injury.  Accordingly,  limiting  the  duration  of  a  boxer's  career  may  reduce  the 
risk  of  chronic  brain  injury.  In  addition,  poor  performance  may  be  a  risk  factor  for 
chronic  brain  injury.  Intuitively,  one  might  expect  that  boxers  who  consistently  lose 
or  display  a  poor  performance  will  suffer  more  brain  injury.  Therefore,  it  appears 
that  boxers  with  excessive  losses  will  have  an  increased  risk  of  chronic  brain  injury. 
Currently,  in  New  York  State,  professional  boxers  are  medically  suspended  for  six 
consecutive  losses  or  three  consecutive  losses  secondary  to  a  TKO/KO. 

Research  on  chronic  brain  injury  will  identify  the  risk  factors  for  this  condition 
which  in  turn  will  provide  criteria  for  legislative  changes  that  may  prevent  or  limit 
serious  illness.  Formal  research  on  chronic  brain  injury  associated  with  boxing  may 
also  lead  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  pathophysiology  of  Alzheimer's  disease. 
There  are  several  pathological  similarities  between  the  brains  of  patients  with  Alz- 
heimer's disease  and  boxers  with  chronic  brain  injury.  The  similarities  may  reflect 
similar  pathophysiological  mechanisms.  Furthermore,  head  trauma  has  also  been 
postulated  to  be  a  risk  factor  for  Alzheimer's  disease. 

Although  chronic  brain  injury  associated  with  boxing  has  been  recognized  since 
1928,  minimal  medical  research  has  been  conducted  to  further  our  understanding  of 
this  syndrome.  There  are  several  factors  that  have  limited  medical  research  in 
boxing.  First,  there  has  been  a  lack  of  government  monies  made  available  for  re- 
search, because  boxing  has  a  low  funding  priority.  Furthermore,  a  large  representa- 
tive population  of  boxers  that  could  be  effectively  studied  is  lacking.  The  establish- 
ment of  a  national  registry  of  all  professional  boxers  would  provide  a  sample  popu- 
lation of  boxers  that  could  be  evaluated. 

Unfortunately,  a  substantial  proportion  of  the  medical  community  has  abandoned 
all  efforts  and  concerns  to  improve  the  safety  standards  in  boxing.  Several  medical 
societies  including  the  A.M.A.  have  proposed  the  abolition  of  the  sport.  However, 
banning  the  sport  of  boxing  will  not  make  it  safer,  because  it  will  continue  under- 
ground as  "bootleg"  boxing.  This  "bootleg"  boxing  would  occur  in  basements,  bars, 
and  backrooms  and  would  totally  lack  medical  supervision.  This  would  result  in  a 
substantially  higher  injury  and  death  rate.  Accordingly,  I  feel  it  is  necessary  to  im- 

(149) 


150 

prove  the  sport  of  boxing  and  make  it  safer  by  advancing  medical  research  in 
boxing. 


Prepared  Statement  of  Dr.  Battalia 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  Senators:  I  am  Dr.  Jack  Battalia,  a  semi-retired  surgeon. 
My  avocation  for  35  years  has  been  boxing  safety.  I  was  a  member  of  the  Portland, 
Oregon  Boxing  and  Wrestling  Commission  for  29  Vz  years,  actively  participating  in 
amateur  boxing  for  15  years  as  well.  Five-and-one-half  years  ago,  Oregon's  law  was 
changed  and  I  became  a  member  of  the  Oregon  Boxing  and  Wrestling  Commission, 
serving  as  chairman  for  the  past  2  years. 

For  the  past  8  years,  I  have  also  been  the  chairman  of  the  IBF/USBA  Medical 
Committee. 

When  first  appointed  to  the  Portland  Commission,  I  knew  nothing  about  boxing 
but  my  orders  from  the  new  Mayor  were  "don't  let  them  get  hurt."  That  has  been 
my  priority  for  35  years.  We  still  had  one  detached  retina  and  two  subdural  hemato- 
mas, fortunately  with  good  recoveries. 

Boxing  is  not  the  dangerous  sport  that  some  would  like  to  believe.  It  has  dropped 
from  No.  5  to  No.  9  in  the  past  few  years.  This  has  come  about  because  of  the  sweat 
and  tears  of  a  lot  of  dedicated  boxing  people.  The  rate  of  deaths  in  horse  racing  is 
the  highest,  followed  by  sky  diving,  hang  gliding,  and  auto  racing.  Football  has 
many  times  the  rate  of  deaths  per  thousand  engaged  in  the  sport  than  boxing,  but  if 
any  sports  writer  or  politician  even  suggested  altering  the  sport,  the  revolution 
would  make  the  Civil  War  look  like  a  garden  party. 

One  of  the  most  important  rule  changes  in  boxing  which  has  reduced  head  inju- 
ries has  been  the  placement  of  Ensolite  safety  mats  under  the  ring  canvas.  An  egg 
dropped  from  4  feet  will  not  break  on  an  Ensolite  mat.  Oregon  was  one  of  the  first 
States  to  mandate  the  mat  for  all  boxing,  pro  and  amateur,  and  we  got  the  IBF  to 
follow  suit.  The  leading  cause  of  boxing  deaths  has  been  the  head  striking  the  floor 
and  not  the  gloved  fist. 

As  far  as  gloves  are  concerned,  there  have  been  some  dramatic  changes.  First,  the 
use  of  Ensolite  instead  of  horsehair  padding.  Second,  the  tie-down  thumb  has  re- 
duced eye  injuries  and  essentially  prevented  Bennett's  fractures  of  the  thumb. 

This  is  a  good  time  to  correct  some  widespread  misconceptions. 

One,  the  safest  fight  as  far  as  head  injuries  are  concerned  is  no  glove,  but  the 
contestants  would  be  cut  to  ribbons  and  hand  fractures  would  be  epidemic. 

Two,  a  heavier  glove  does  not  reduce  head  injuries.  It  increases  them.  For  every 
two  ounces  of  increased  glove  weight,  it  is  the  equivalent  of  putting  a  roll  of  pennies 
in  the  boxer's  hand.  The  increased  padding  reduces  cuts  but  the  increased  weight 
increases  the  force  hitting  the  head  and,  thus,  slapping  the  brain  against  the  skull. 
In  my  estimation,  the  time  has  come  to  eliminate  boxing  glove  weight  standards.  I 
have  asked  Dr.  Barry  Jordan  from  New  York  if  they  can  research  the  optimum  den- 
sity and  thickness  of  the  padding  to  arrive  at  the  safest  glove.  Then  the  gloves 
would  all  have  the  same  thickness  and  the  only  difference  would  be  the  width  of  the 
glove  depending  on  the  size  of  the  hand  in  the  various  weight  classes. 

Three,  finally  the  misconception  of  headgear.  Every  do-gooder  asks,  "why  don't  we 
make  all  boxers  wear  headgear  like  the  amateurs?  '  The  headgear  is  a  dangerous 
effort  to  make  some  people  look  like  they  know  what  they  are  doing.  Again,  the 
padding  reduces  the  cuts  and  cauliflower  ears;  however,  the  headgear  adds  weight 
to  the  head  and,  thus,  when  struck,  the  inertia  slows  the  movement  of  the  head  and 
thus  the  movable  brain  inside  the  skull  slaps  around  more  and  you  get  contrecoup 
injuries. 

Four,  the  four-strand  ring  has  reduced  injuries  from  boxers  falling  through  the 
ropes,  but  the  lowest  rope  needs  to  be  moved  back  about  6  inches  so  a  falling  boxer 
doesn't  catch  his  neck  on  the  bottom  strand.  I  am  positive  that  the  Korean  boxer 
who  died  in  California  a  few  years  ago  was  killed  by  the  rabbit  punch  whiplash 
when  his  neck  struck  the  rope  rather  than  the  KO  punch.  This  injury  was  dramatic 
when  reviewed  on  tape. 

The  standards  for  physical  exams  and  eye  exams  are  out  there,  but  only  a  few 
States  in  the  IBF  are  following  them.  The  IBF  Medical  Committee  and  its  available 
consultants  are  always  available  to  evaluate  a  boxer  and/or  his  suspension. 

In  conclusion,  I  wish  to  point  out  the  inconsistency  of  the  Federal  Government 
and  boxing  safety.  We  physicians  in  boxing  are  all  aware  that  acute  and  chronic 
boxing  injuries  are  more  apt  to  occur  after  the  age  of  35,  or  after  a  certain  number 
of  fights  because  of  slowed  reflexes  which  can't  be  measured  by  present  technology. 
The  Feds  say,  "make  it  safer,"  but  when  we  try  to  stop  all  boxing  at  the  age  of  35 


151 

they  scream  "age  discrimination."  For  every  George  Foreman,  who  is  a  physical  ex- 
ception, there  are  a  thousand  boxers  out  there  who  are  getting  hurt  by  being  al- 
lowed to  continue.  Help  us  put  an  age  limit  on  boxing. 


Prepared  Statement  of  Dr.  Ward 

My  name  is  W.  Timothy  Ward.  I  am  currently  in  the  full  time  practice  of  medi- 
cine as  an  Assistant  Professor  of  Orthopedic  Surgery  at  the  University  of  Pitts- 
burgh, in  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania.  I  have  been  asked  to  appear  before  this  Com- 
mittee to  provide  testimony  as  to  my  understanding  of  the  current  state  of  profes- 
sional boxing  viewed  from  a  medical  standpoint.  I  believe  that  I  do  possess  a  certain 
degree  of  credibility  in  this  regard  as  I  have  been  involved  in  the  sport  of  boxing 
first  as  an  amateur  competitor  for  several  years  and  subsequently  as  a  physician 
caring  for  and  overseeing  the  medical  aspects  of  this  sport  since  1978.  I  am  a 
member  of  the  Sports  Medicine  Committee  of  the  USA  Boxing  Incorporated  as  well 
as  a  certified  ringside  physician  for  that  organization.  I  am  currently  Chairman  of 
the  Medical  Advisory  Board  and  an  exofficio  voting  member  of  the  State  Athletic 
Commission  for  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania.  My  statements  today  are  not 
the  official  positions  of  either  the  University  of  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania  State  Ath- 
letic Commission  or  of  USA  Boxing  Incorporated  but  rather  reflect  my  personal 
belief  concerning  the  medical  aspects  of  boxing. 

The  sport  of  boxing  traces  its  roots  to  the  23rd  Olympiad  in  688  BC.  At  that  Olym- 
piad there  was  no  ring  utilized,  no  rest  period,  no  time  limits,  punching  and  kicking 
were  allowed  anywhere,and  the  contest  was  not  over  until  one  contestant  either 
gave  up  or  was  knocked  out — a  situation  that  we  might  well  describe  today  as  an 
unruly  street  fight.  The  modern  era  of  boxing  was  ushered  in  with  the  Queensbury 
Rules  of  1867  which  mandated  the  use  of  padded  gloves,  three  minute  rounds  with 
one  minute  rest  periods,  abolition  of  wrestling,  and  the  usage  of  a  ten  second  knock 
down  rule.  Boxing  has  continued  to  evolve  since  the  inception  of  the  Queensbury 
rules  but  the  fundamental  intent  of  the  sport  has  not  changed.  A  contestant  seeks 
to  out  box  and  willfully  concuss  his  opponent  in  order  to  gain  victory.  Such  activity 
will  obviously  entail  a  certain  degree  of  risk  for  which  medical  treatment  and  super- 
vision is  necessary. 

The  forces  produced  by  boxing  head  blows  are  quite  significant.  It  has  been  esti- 
mated that  a  safe  level  of  force  can  be  exceeded  by  a  factor  of  four  with  boxing  head 
blows.  This  force  is  roughly  equivalent  to  an  unrestrained  passenger  striking  his 
head  on  the  dashboard  in  a  low  speed  auto  collision.  The  forces  generated  by  hard 
head  blows  are  frequently  higher  than  the  threshold  for  brain  injury.  An  apprecia- 
tion of  the  involved  forces  makes  it  easy  to  understand  why  the  sport  of  boxing  en- 
tails a  certain  degree  of  neurologic  ocular  and  musculoskeletal  risk.  Improved  medi- 
cal supervision  of  boxing  will  hopefully  diminish  the  acute  and  chronic  risks  inher- 
ent in  this  sport. 

Despite  a  popular  public  misconception,  boxing  does  not  rank  high  on  a  risk  ot 
sporting  endeavors  which  are  associated  with  acute  death.  The  prevalence  of  boxing- 
related  deaths  has  been  estimated  to  be  around  0.13  per  1,000  participants.  This 
compares  very  favorably  to  other  sports  such  as  college  football  which  estimated  at 
0.3  per  1,000,  hang  gliding  at  5.6,  sky  diving  at  12.3  and  horse  racing  at  12.8  per 
1,000  participants.  While  death  in  the  boxing  ring  is  certainly  tragic  when  it  occurs, 
current  medical  supervision  is  able  to  almost  eliminate  this  event  if  appropriate 
medical  guidelines  are  followed. 

Clearly,  the  singularly  most  important  and  derisive  medical  issue  surrounding  the 
sport  of  professional  boxing  has  to  do  with  the  occurrence  and  possible  prevention  of 
chronic  brain  injury  among  its  participants.  Boxing  fans  refer  to  these  affected  ex- 
boxers  as  being  cuckoo,  goofy,  slugnutty,  punchy,  or  punch  drunk.  The  medical  liter- 
ature utilizes  such  terms  as  punch  drunk,  dementia  pugilistica  and  chronic  traumat- 
ic boxer's  encephalopathy. 

Chronic  traumatic  boxers  encephalopathy  is  a  constellation  of  different  types  ot 
cerebral,  cerebellar,  psychiatric,  and  Parkinsonian  symptoms.  Its  time  of  onset,  rate 
of  progression,  and  clinical  manifestations  are  quite  variable.  It  may  first  make  its 
appearance  after  a  particularly  difficult  match,  at  the  end  of  a  lengthy  career,  or 
not  until  20  to  25  years  after  the  cessation  of  a  boxer's  career.  As  stated,  the  rate  of 
progression  of  this  syndrome  is  quite  variable.  Clearly  there  are  many  individuals 
who  have  only  a  minor  static  involvement  but  there  are  others  that  have  relentless 
progression  eventually  requiring  permanent  psychiatric  institutionalization.  The 
clinical  manifestation  of  this  syndrome  is  exceedingly  variable.  Early  signs  and 
symptoms  include  slurring  of  speech,  diminution  in  cognitive  function  particularly 


152 

with  respect  to  perception  and  memory.  Dementia  can  become  exceedingly  severe 
and  eventually  indistinguishable  from  severe  Alzheimer's  syndrome.  Cerebellar 
symptoms  lead  to  poor  coordination  and  unsteadiness  in  gait.  There  may  be  weak- 
ness of  the  upper  extremities  or  dragging  of  a  leg.  Parkinsonian  symptoms  arise 
which  lead  to  immobility  of  facial  appearance,  slowness  of  movement,  shuffling  gait, 
rigidity,  and  tremors.  Psychiatric  symptoms  result  in  profound  personality  deterio- 
ration with  generalized  lack  of  awareness  and  occasional  violent  behavior.  The  syn- 
drome complex  may  initially  be  difficult  to  diagnose  accurately  because  of  the  vast 
array  of  signs  and  symptoms. 

The  occurrence  of  this  syndrome  is  much  more  common  in  professional  than  in 
amateur  boxers.  It  is  directly  related  to  the  length  of  a  boxer's  career  and  probably 
not  to  the  number  of  times  he  has  been  knocked  down  or  out.  The  occurrence  of  the 
syndrome  increases  with  increasing  age  of  the  ex-boxer.  An  excellent  medical  study 
reported  in  1969  by  Roberts  which  looked  at  retired  British  professional  boxers  who 
had  competed  prior  to  World  War  II  estimated  the  prevalence  of  this  syndrome  to 
be  around  17  percent.  There  is  no  definitive  work  available  to  tell  us  the  modern 
day  prevalence  of  this  syndrome.  While  modern  day  medical  intervention  probably 
has  diminished  the  frequency  of  this  syndrome  there  are  disturbing  trends  which 
continue  to  be  present.  Studies  which  have  utilized  sophisticated  CT  or  MRI  imag- 
ing as  well  as  neuropsychological  testing  continue  to  demonstrate  a  high  incidence 
of  subclinical  structural  findings.  Whether  these  abnormal  imaging  findings  and 
neuropsychological  tests  are  the  precursors  to  a  full-blown  encephalopathic  syn- 
drome can  only  be  answered  with  a  longitudinal  follow-up  of  these  modern  day 
boxers. 

I  believe  that  there  are  at  least  seven  areas  in  which  the  sport  of  boxing  could  be 
improved  from  a  medical  stand  point,  thereby  diminishing  the  occurrence  of  injury. 
These  measures  include:  (1)  Better  medical  supervision,  (2)  shorter  competitions,  (3) 
more  consistent  medical  administrative  control  of  the  sport  both  nationally  and 
internationally,  (4)  more  knowledgeable  trainers,  managers,  promoters,  and  referees, 
(5)  appropriate  gloves,  rings,  posts,  and  headgear,  (6)  and  improved  boxer  education. 

Better  medical  supervision  can  be  subdivided  into  (1)  an  improvement  in  the  qual- 
ity of  ringside  physicians,  (2)  institution  of  mandatory  medical  suspensions,  (3)  insti- 
tution of  a  serial  imaging  screening  program,  (4)  assurance  of  acute  life  support 
measures,  and  (5)  development  of  a  comprehensive  evacuation  plan  and  neurosurgi- 
cal support  in  case  of  an  emergency. 

Ringside  physicians  should  become  more  knowledgeable  about  the  sport  of  boxing. 
There  is  an  abundance  of  medical  literature  available  in  the  way  of  refereed  and 
non  refereed  articles,  books  and  book  chapters  to  educate  these  physicians.  A  physi- 
cian should  have  freedom  at  ringside  to  stop  a  contest  if  he  or  she  feels  that  a  boxer 
is  in  jeopardy.  There  should  be  no  interference  in  this  regard  from  the  State  Boxing 
Commission  or  any  other  concerned  parties.  Medical  suspensions  should  be  strict 
and  uniform.  Currently  a  suspension  in  one  State  may  either  not  be  appreciated  or 
ignored  in  another  State.  Suspensions  should  also  apply  to  sparring  sessions  as  well 
as  competition.  Serial  head  scanning  and  ophthalmological  examinations  should  be 
instituted  in  order  to  detect  early  subtle  abnormalities  and  thereby  hopefully  be 
able  to  prevent  these  abnormalities  from  developing  into  more  serious  problems.  A 
mechanism  of  medical  supervision  which  is  uniform  nationally  should  be  instituted. 
Such  supervision  is  not  currently  possible  within  the  financial  budgets  of  most  State 
Boxing  Commissions.  Enhanced  funding  is  clearly  necessary  to  ensure  uniform  high 
quality  medical  coverage.  It  is  important  that  trainers,  managers,  promoters,  and 
especially  referees  all  become  better  educated  concerning  the  medical  risks  inherent 
in  boxing.  The  referee  must  recognize  and  understand  the  serious  implications  of 
the  so  called  groggy  state  in  which  fighters  frequently  find  themselves.  A  contest 
should  not  be  allowed  to  continue  when  one  boxer  has  been  concussed  and  is  not 
adequately  able  to  defend  himself. 

Besides  chronic  brain  injury  in  boxing,  serious  injury  is  also  noted  in  the  muscu- 
loskeletal system  and  in  the  ocular  system.  The  incidence  of  retinal  tears  in  profes- 
sional boxers  has  been  estimated  to  be  somewhere  around  13  to  24  percent.  This  in- 
cidence is  related  to  the  number  of  bouts  fought  and  to  the  number  of  losses  sus- 
tained. Unfortunately  the  boxer  is  usually  asymptomatic  when  the  injury  first 
occurs  and  therefore  would  only  be  picked  up  with  appropriate  ophthalmological 
screening  examinations.  I  would  concur  with  published  recommendations  advising 
annual  ophthalmologic  examinations  which  include  visual  acuity,  visual  fields,  slit 
lamp  examination,  pressure  measurements,  gonioscopy  and  dilated  retinal  examina- 
tion. Enactment  of  the  preventive  measures  which  I  have  mentioned  with  respect  to 
brain  injury  would  also  apply  to  prevention  of  ocular  or  musculoskeletal  injury. 


153 

Any  opinion  concerning  the  overall  merits  or  deficiencies  of  boxing  must  be  made 
not  only  on  medical  but  also  sociological,  psychological  and  financial  grounds.  Feel- 
ings run  deeply  about  the  sport  of  boxing  from  unyielding  support  to  unyielding  op- 
position with  a  determination  to  seek  its  abolition.  Proponents  of  boxing  argue  that 
the  sport  encourages  rigorous  training,  discipline,  alertness,  courage,  endurance, 
and  generally  builds  character.  Boxing  is  also  lauded  as  one  of  the  few  avenues  to 
"escape  the  ghetto"  for  economically  disadvantaged  minority  youths.  Opponents  of 
boxing  site  its  known  deleterious  cerebral  and  ocular  effects  and  consider  it  brutal, 
atavistic,  uncivilized,  and  inherently  discriminatory  with  predominately  disadvan- 
taged minority  youth  as  the  participants. 

In  summary  I  believe  that  professional  boxing  is  a  very  difficult  sporting  endeavor 
requiring  significant  dedication  and  hard  work.  The  participants  expose  themselves 
to  significant  medical  risk  particularly  with  respect  to  neurologic  and  ocular  injury. 
The  boxing  establishment  particularly  the  medical  community,  is  attempting  to 
reduce  these  risks  but  the  effectiveness  of  these  risk  reduction  measures  cannot  be 
determined  until  they  are  fully  implemented.  As  is  true  with  most  complex  social 
issues,  and  boxing  is  surely  more  than  simply  a  medical  issue,  there  is  room  for 
compromise  and  improvement.  Diligent  medical  participation  will  continue  to  en- 
hance boxing  safety.  On  going  expert  care,  sophisticated  neurological  and  ocular 
monitoring,  and  high  quality  retrospective  and  prospective  medical  studies  in  con- 
junction with  the  institution  of  nationally  accepted  medical  standards  will  eventual- 
ly provide  an  indisputable  data  base  which  society  can  use  to  help  make  an  educat- 
ed, unemotional  decision  on  how  it  chooses  to  deal  with  the  sport  of  boxing.  Ulti- 
mately, it  must  be  society  that  determines  if  the  objectives  of  boxing  are  appropriate 
for  our  culture  and  what  level  of  inherent  medical  risks  we  are  prepared  to  accept 
as  an  unfortunate  byproduct  of  this  sport. 


Prepared  Statement  of  Mr.  Abraham 

Good  morning,  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee. 

I  am  Seth  G.  Abraham  and  I  am  President  of  Time  Warner  Sports,  a  wholly- 
owned  subsidiary  of  Home  Box  Office,  Inc.  For  the  past  15  years,  I  have  directed  the 
negotiations  for  the  telecasting  of  professional  prizefights  on  HBO.  Additionally,  2 
years  ago,  HBO  launched  a  boxing  pay-per-view  network  we  call  "TVKO,"  which  I 
also  oversee.  Between  our  2  networks,  we  broadcast  approximately  20  professional 
prizefights  each  year. 

In  fact,  on  January  16,  1993  HBO  celebrated  its  20th  anniversary  of  boxing  when 
George  Foreman  marked  our  milestone  with  his  67th  professional  victory.  It  is  a  his- 
torical curiosity  that  George  Foreman  also  appeared  in  HBO's  very  first  televised 
bout  when  he  won  the  World  Heavyweight  Championship  from  Joe  Frazier  in 
Kingston,  Jamaica  on  January  22,  1973.  In  the  two  decades  since,  HBO  has  televised 
over  200  matches,  including  109  world  championship  prizefights  from  all  over  the 
world. 

Last  Saturday  night  was  our  109th  World  Championship  title  fight  when  two  of 
the  best  fighters  in  the  world,  James  "Buddy"  McGirt  and  Pernell  Whitaker  vied 
for  the  World  Boxing  Council's  World  Welterweight  Championship  before  11,000 
fans  at  New  York's  Madison  Square  Garden  and  an  HBO  TV  audience  of  10  million 
viewers. 

Of  course,  the  link  between  boxing  and  broadcasting  pre-dates  HBO  and  TVKO  by 
centuries.  To  be  exact,  96  years  ago  next  Wednesday  the  first  full-length  moving  pic- 
tures of  a  heavyweight  championship  prizefight  were  taken  by  an  unknown  camera- 
man in  Carson  City,  Nevada,  who  recorded  for  posterity  Robert  Fitzsimmons  of  Eng- 
land knocking  out  James  Corbett  in  14  rounds  on  March  17,  1897.  Further  back 
still,  Greek  heralds  ran  the  countryside  in  about  880  BC  to  trumpet  the  winners  of 
Olympic  box-offs.  Television,  therefore,  is  a  by-product  of  boxing,  not  the  other  way 
around. 

I  want  to  thank  the  Committee  for  giving  me  the  opportunity  today  to  express  my 
views,  and  to  support  your  efforts. 

As  you  well  know,  Congressional  committees  have  conducted  boxing  probes 
through  the  1960s,  1970s  and  1980s.  But  I  believe  that  Senator  Roth's  bill  has  the 
potential  to  significantly  improve  boxing,  both  inside  and  outside  the  ring. 

First,  let  me  discuss  the  issues  inside  the  ring.  I  applaud  your  efforts  to  reform 
the  conduct  of  the  matches  themselves.  If  you  are  successful,  you  will  achieve  two 
very  noteworthy  goals.  Men  who  box  for  a  living  will  be  safer  with  more  thoughtful 
health  and  safety  protections  and  also,  fans  will  have  a  higher  regard  for  the  sport's 


65-875  0-93-6 


154 

credibility.  In  that  regard,  everyone  involved  in  boxing  gains.  It  is  for  that  funda- 
mental reason  that  we  very  strongly  support  legislation. 

There  are  several  provisions  of  your  bill  which  we  feel  are  particularly  important 
and  deserve  elaboration  because  they  enhance  the  safety  of  boxers  and  the  conduct 
of  what  happens  inside  the  ropes: 

(1)  An  international,  computerized  clearinghouse  should  be  established  as  a  repos- 
itory for  fighters'  medical  records,  won/loss  records  and  videotapes  of  all  televised 
bouts  for  reference  purposes.  HBO/TVKO  would  be  pleased  to  make  available  all 
videotapes  of  the  bouts  we  cover  for  this  purpose. 

(2)  Annual  licenses  should  be  mandatory  for  boxers,  referees,  and  judges. 

(3)  Three-year  "certificates-of-registration"  for  managers,  promoters  and  trainers 
should  be  required. 

(4)  A  key  provision  should  protect  and  ensure  the  safety  of  fighters  by  establishing 
uniform  rules  to  govern  the  conduct,  refereeing  and  judging  of  professional  prize- 
fights. 

(5)  The  Federal  Boxing  Commission  should  impose  standards  for  emergency  medi- 
cal services  at  every  professional  match. 

(6)  The  Federal  Boxing  Commission  should  establish  minimum  standards  for  full 
physical  and  neurological  examinations  and  minimal  standards  for  participation  in 
a  professional  prizefight. 

(7)  The  boxing  community  should  explore  how  to  establish  a  life,  accident  and 
health  insurance  fund  for  professional  boxers.  A  portion  of  the  total  revenues  gener- 
ated by  each  professional  prizefight  should  be  set  aside  for  this  purpose,  and 

(8)  The  Federal  Boxing  Commission  should  establish  minimum  standards  for  the 
manufacture  and  use  of  boxing  equipment. 

In  boxing  jargon,  a  "standing  eight-count"  is  administered  by  a  referee  to  give  a 
fighter  eight  seconds  to  regroup  and  collect  his  senses.  If  you  enact  these  eight  re- 
commentations — which  are  largely  already  incorporated  into  your  bill — you  will 
have  helped,  in  no  small  measure,  to  protect  boxing's  sense  of  fair  play  for  its  most 
important  constituency — the  fighters  themselves. 

I  wish  to  point  out  to  you  that  the  eight  counts  of  reform  we  have  listed  all  have 
to  do  with  the  conduct  of  a  fight  inside  the  ring  and  the  physical  safety  of  the  men 
who  box  for  a  living.  They  deserve  to  be  safeguarded  because  "boxing  is  a  hard  way 
to  earn  a  big  dollar." 

Earlier  in  this  statement,  I  suggested  to  the  Committee  that  the  scope  of  its  probe 
should  include  the  study  of  what  goes  on  outside  the  ropes  that  form  the  square  in 
which  fighters  go  to  work. 

Boxing  is  a  two-fisted  business  in  every  sense.  On  one  hand,  there  is  of  course, 
what  happens  inside  the  ring.  In  her  book  "On  Boxing,"  Joyce  Carol  Oates  describes 
"each  boxing  match  is  a  story,  a  unique  and  highly  condensed  drama  without 
words." 

If  the  ring  is  a  place  beyond  words,  then  the  other  hand  of  the  sport  is  the  busi- 
ness of  boxing.  This  commence  is  a  contest  of  many  words,  much  money,  guile  and 
intellect,  chess-like  moves  and  counter-moves  to  make  matches.  Matchmaking  to 
make  fights  is  frequently  as  percussive  as  the  prizefight  themselves. 

That,  too,  needs  study  and  thoughtful  consideration.  This  part  of  the  business  is 
far  more  subtle  than  the  feints,  jabs  and  slick  moves  from  even  the  craftiest  boxer. 

I  have  met  twice  with  representatives  of  this  Committee  suggesting  to  them  an 
examination  of  how  the  business  of  boxing  conducts  itself.  I  have  attempted  to  paint 
a  detailed  picture  of  how  boxing  negotiations  are  conducted  and  how  television  dis- 
tribution deals  are  made.  I  have  also  responded  to  Subcommittee  questions  about 
how  boxers  are  ranked,  unranked,  or  de-ranked  and  how  the  four  governing  organi- 
zations govern  or  not.  These  ranking  organizations  are  often  part  of  the  problem, 
not  part  of  the  solution  as  they  should  be.  Self-regulation  among  members  of  box- 
ing's business  community  should  be  a  goal  for  all  of  us,  simply,  to  maintain  and 
enhance  the  public's  belief  in,  and  support  of,  boxing.  The  industry  must  do  better. 
Fans  support  boxing  like  any  other  sport.  If  fans  lose  their  belief  in  boxing's  legiti- 
macy, the  entire  industry,  fighters,  managers,  promoters  and  arenas  suffer.  Fans 
are  the  organ  grinders;  we're  the  monkeys. 

Nevertheless,  revised  standards  and  uniform  regulations  for  the  conduct  of  box- 
ing's business  should  be  examined  carefully.  In  contrast  to  the  health  and  safety 
and  related  issues  discussed  above,  I  do  not  believe  that  sweeping  regulation  of  the 
business  side  of  boxing  is  necessary  or  appropriate.  There  are,  however,  at  least  two 
areas  which  merit  your  attention: 

(1)  How  the  four  governing  bodies  impact  the  sport;  and 

(2)  How  conflicts-of-interest  may  adversely  affect  prizefighters. 


155 

Quite  possibly,  the  most  arcane  and  pernicious  rules  of  the  self-professed  govern- 
ing organizations  are  how  they  rate  and  rank  prizefighters  within  17  different 
weight  classes.  Champions  of  some  organizations  are  not  even  ranked  in  competing 
organizations.  Undefeated  Heavyweight  Champion  Riddick  Bowe  is  a  non-person  in 
the  World  Boxing  Council.  In  1992  Bowe  was  actually  lowered  in  the  WBC's  ratings 
from  No.  1  to  No.  2,  and  the  fighter  who  replaced  him,  Donovan  "Razor"  Ruddock, 
had  lost  both  of  his  matches  during  the  year.  This  points  to  the  need  for  an  inde- 
pendent body  that  has  no  financial  interest  to  rank  fighters  based  on  won-loss 
records,  not  byzantine  politics.  We  support  this  important  reform. 

To  the  extent  that  conflicts-of-interest  may  exist  in  the  boxing  business,  HBO  has 
neither  the  power  nor  the  authority  to  police  such  conflicts.  I  believe,  however,  that 
the  best  way  to  deal  with  conflicts  is  mandatory  disclosure  of  information  to  the 
boxers  and  State  and  Federal  regulatory  bodies.  If  you  can  ensure  that  everyone  has 
full  knowledge  of  the  relevant  facts,  you  will  have  gone  a  long  way  toward  limiting 
the  harmful  effects  of  conflict  of  interest. 

Oddly,  even  though  boxing's  business  needs  reform,  ill-conceived  regulations  could 
strip  the  sport  of  whatever  effective  policing  and  monitoring  it  does  have,  actually 
making  matters  worse.  At  the  turn  of  the  20th  century,  several  States,  including 
New  York  banned  boxing  altogether,  so  enterprising  promoters  staged  bouts  on 
river  barges,outside  territorial  waters.  Barge  fights  made  arena  fights  appear  to  be 
church  socials  by  comparison. 

Again  Joyce  Carol  Oates:  "life  is  like  boxing  in  many  unsettling  respects.  But 
boxing  is  only  like  boxing."  Since  boxing  is  only  like  boxing,  I  urge  caution  and 
common  sense  wisdom  on  promulgating  new  rules  to  govern  its  business. 

I  am  often  asked  if  I  consider  boxing  a  sport.  After  all,  one  plays  football,  tennis 
or  basketball.  One  doesn't  "play"  boxing.  It  is  a  serious  business.  When  asked  about 
boxing  as  a  sport,  ageless-but-not-speechless  George  Foreman  had  this  to  say: 

"Boxing  is  sort  of  like  jazz.  The  better  one  performs,  the  less  amount  of  people 
can  really  appreciate  it." 

But  boxing  is  a  sport  with  thousands  of  practitioners  and  millions  of  fans  through 
the  United  States. 

In  fact,  America's  first  identifiable  sports  hero,  was  the  heavyweight  giant  John 
L.  Sullivan,  who  did  business  as  "The  Boston  Strongboy"  throughout  the  1880s.  Sul- 
livan entered  boxing  lore  and  was  held  in  the  highest  esteem  when  he  vowed  and 
delivered  on  the  promise  that  "I  can  lick  any  man  in  the  house." 

If  your  hearings  and  legislation  can  lick  just  some  of  boxing's  problems  and  short- 
comings, real  fight  fans  and  prize  fighters  would  regard  you,  too,  in  high  esteem. 

Thank  you,  Senators,  for  this  chance  to  express  my  views. 

I  hope  they  are  of  some  value  to  you. 


Prepared  Statement  of  Mr.  Aresco 

My  name  is  Michael  Aresco  and  I  am  a  program  manager  in  the  ESPN  Program- 
ming Department.  ESPN  is  the  Nation's  largest  cable  network  reaching  approxi- 
mately 61.8  million  homes.  It  is  an  all  sports  network  which  has  programmed  over 
60  different  kinds  of  sports.  As  a  program  manager,  I  acquire  and  manage  program- 
ming in  various  categories,  including  college  football,  rodeo,  and  other  equestrian 
programming.  I  have  also  handled  NCAA  championships,  yachting,  and  fitness  and 
aerobic  shows.  One  of  my  current  programming  responsibilities  is  ESPN's  boxing.  I 
have  been  with  the  network  8  years  and  was  Assistant  General  Counsel  before  join- 
ing the  Programming  Department.  I  am  a  graduate  of  Tufts  University,  the  Fletch- 
er School  of  Law  and  Diplomacy  and  the  University  of  Connecticut  Law  School. 

In  April,  ESPN  celebrates  the  13th  anniversary  of  our  highly  popular  and  success- 
ful Top  Rank  boxing  series,  which  features  up  and  coming  fighters  as  well  as  estab- 
lished fighters.  The  series  has  featured  important  world  title  matches,  and  enter- 
taining and  significant  non-title  fights.  Over  the  years,  we  have  also  televised  occa- 
sional boxing  cards  obtained  from  other  promoters,  which  we  refer  to  as  wildcard 

Boxing  is  a  major  and  popular  sport  among  our  viewers  worldwide.  Our  philoso- 
phy with  respect  to  our  boxing,  as  manifested  in  our  Top  Rank  series,  has  been  and 
remains  to  provide  our  viewers  with  the  best  quality  fights  that  they  would  most 
want  to  watch.  We  are  proud  of  the  integrity,  stability,  longevity  and  ratings  and 
production  success  of  the  series.  , 

Let  me  give  you  some  background  on  how  we  program  boxing  at  hbfiN.  We  tele- 
vise approximately  40,  mostly  live,  boxing  cards  per  year,  through  our  agreement 
with  Top  Rank,  Inc.  We  have  been  doing  business  with  Top  Rank  since  1980.  Top 


156 

Rank  arranges  the  boxing  matchups,  employing  matchmakers  who  try  to  create  ex- 
citing, competitive,  quality  bouts.  Top  Rank  promotes  and  stages  the  cards,  makes 
all  arrangements  with  the  proposed  sites,  pays  the  fighters,  obtains  all  required 
boxing  licenses  or  other  necessary  authorizations — in  short  handles  all  the  arrange- 
ments necessary  to  stage  the  events  for  television.  ESPN  in  turn  selects  the  an- 
nouncers and  commentators  and  produce  the  telecasts.  Included  in  each  telecast  are 
various  features,  including  a  segment  called  "Ringside  Report"  which  focuses  on 
current  boxing  news  and  upcoming  fights  of  note. 

Our  boxing  mix  consists  of  fights  in  most  weight  classes,  which  in  any  given  year 
might  include  various  title  fights,  as  well  as  undercard  fights  which  usually  feature 
up  and  coming  young  fighters.  For  example,  we  recently  televised  the  IBF  Cruiser- 
weight  title  fight  between  Alfred  Cole  and  Uriah  Grant.  Mike  Tyson,  Riddick  Bowe, 
and  Tommy  Hearns  have  all  fought  on  Top  Rank  boxing. 

ESPN  generally  schedules  its  Top  Rank  cards,  which  are  usually  2-hour  shows  but 
occasionally  are  1 V2  hours,  in  prime  time  on  Thursday  nights,  Sunday  nights  in  first 
Quarter,  and  occasional  Wednesdays  and  Fridays  when  scheduling  conflicts  occur. 
We  also  repeat  our  Top  Rank  telecasts  at  other  times  of  the  day,  usually  weekday 
afternoons.  From  time  to  time  ESPN  has  acquired  repeat-delay-rights  to  boxing 
cards  originally  staged  by  Top  Rank  as  pay-per-view  or  network 'fights.  These  bouts 
are  included  in  our  Top  Rank  shows. 

Additionally,  ESPN  has  over  the  years  televised  historical  boxing  matches  which 
are  call  "Superbouts."  These  are  1-hour  shows  featuring  footage  of  such  famous 
fights  as  Ali-Norton,  Leonard-Duran,  Leonard-Hagler,  or  compilation  shows  such  as 
George  Foreman's  Knockouts  or  Marvin  Hagler's  Knockouts.  This  series,  along  with 
our  live  Top  Rank  series,  is  popular  with  our  viewers. 

A  gauge  of  that  popularity  is  our  high  ratings  for  the  Top  Rank  series.  In  1992, 
we  averaged  a  2.2  rating  for  40  cards.  A  rating  point  represents  1  percent  of  ESPN's 
viewer  universe  of  approximately  61.8  million  households,  which  translates  to  ap- 
proximately 618,000  homes.  A  2.2  rating  represents  approximately  1,360,000  house- 
holds who  regularly  watch  ESPN's  Top  Rank  boxing. 

We  take  measures  to  safeguard  the  integrity  of  our  boxing.  Top  Rank  does  not  use 
fighters  whose  records  cannot  be  verified  by  the  well-respected  Ralph  Citro  Record 
Service.  All  feature  match  fighters  must  have  winning  records.  We  require  Top 
Rank  to  sign  a  quarterly  certificate  certifying  that  all  information  to  be  provided  to 
ESPN  during  the  affected  calendar  quarter  with  respect  to  all  fighters  appearing  on 
ESPN  is  true  and  correct. 

In  summary,  boxing  is  an  important  part  of  ESPN's  successful  programming  mix. 
It  has  consistently  been  one  of  our  highest  rated  series  over  the  years. 


Prepared  Statement  of  Mr.  Gravano 

Good  afternoon,  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee.  My  name  is 
Salvatore  Gravano.  Early  in  my  life,  I  was  given  the  nickname,  "Sammy  the  Bull."  I 
have  been  in  jail  since  December  of  1990,  when  I  was  arrested  with  John  Gotti.  I 
was  his  underboss  and  second  in  command  of  the  Gambino  family. 

I  have  been  involved  with  organized  crime  since  1968,  when  I  became  associated 
with  a  guy  named  "Shorty  Spero"  of  the  Colombo  family.  I  committed  many  types 
of  crimes  when  I  was  with  "Shorty,"  including  my  first  murder.  In  1972,  I  was  offi- 
cially released  from  the  Colombo  family  to  the  Gambino  family.  I  became  a  "made" 
member  of  the  Gambino  family  in  1976.  At  that  time,  Paul  Castellano  was  the  boss 
of  the  Gambino  family. 

In  December  of  1985,  John  Gotti  and  I,  along  with  some  others,  murdered  Paul 
Castellano.  We  then  took  over  our  family.  John  Gotti  became  the  boss.  A  couple  of 
weeks  later,  I  became  a  captain.  In  1987,  I  became  acting  consigliere  of  our  family.  I 
later  became  the  official  consigliere.  Then  in  January  of  1990,  I  accepted  the  posi- 
tion of  official  underboss,  which  I  held  until  I  began  to  cooperate  with  the  govern- 
ment in  1991. 

I  decided  to  cooperate  before  we — meaning  me,  John  Gotti  and  our  acting  consig- 
liere, Frank  Locascio — went  to  trial.  I  testified  in  that  trial  and  some  other  trials.  I 
will  be  testifying  at  more  trials  in  the  near  future.  As  part  of  my  deal  with  the  gov- 
ernment, I  pleaded  guilty  to  a  charge  that  has  a  20  year  maximum  sentence,  rather 
than  the  life  sentence  that  I  was  facing  if  I  was  convicted  at  trial.  As  part  of  my 
cooperation,  I  have  told  the  government  about  my  life  of  crime,  including  the  fact 
that  I  participated  in  19  murders. 

As  a  member  of  our  family's  administration,  I  helped  John  Gotti  run  the  family. 
My  primary  responsibility  was  controlling  the  construction  industry  in  New  York.  I 


157 

did  this  by  working  with  union  officials  and  companies  that  were  owned  or  con- 
trolled by  our  family,  and  by  dealing  with  other  families,  which  also  controlled  cer- 
tain unions  and  companies. 

I  have  been  asked  to  testify  here  today  about  the  mob's  involvement  in  profession- 
al boxing.  I  don't  know  much  about  what  other  families  have  been  doing  in  boxing, 
but  I  do  know  about  our  family. 

The  Gambino  family  had  basically  gotten  out  of  boxing  some  time  around,  or 
before,  1960.  We  were  involved  in  other  things  that  made  more  money.  But  I  have 
always  had  an  interest  in  boxing.  I  boxed  a  little  when  I  was  in  the  Army,  and  I 
picked  it  up  again  a  few  years  before  I  was  arrested.  I  would  go  down  to  Gleason's 
Gym  in  Brooklyn  every  week  and  work  out.  Sometimes,  I  would  go  a  few  rounds 
with  other  people  who  trained  there.  I  often  attended  fights  in  New  York  and  New 
Jersey,  including  the  Mike  Tyson-Larry  Holmes  fight  in  1988  in  Atlantic  City,  which 
I  attended  with  John  Gotti. 

I  got  to  know  a  heavyweight  named  Renaldo  Snipes  and  his  manager,  who  I  knew 
as  Sal.  I  tried  to  set  up  a  fight  between  Snipes  and  Francesco  Damiani,  who  was  the 
undefeated  European  and  WBO  heavyweight  champ.  Damiani  was  with  an  orga- 
nized crime  family  in  Italy.  Since  our  family  had  close  ties  with  the  Italian  family,  I 
was  able  to  set  up  a  meeting  with  Damiani's  people.  They  came  to  New  York,  and 
we  discussed  the  possibility  of  a  fight  with  Snipes.  At  that  time,  Damiani  was  al- 
ready scheduled  to  fight  Ray  Mercer. 

One  of  the  things  I  did  to  try  to  arrange  a  Damiani-Snipes  fight  was  to  reach  out 
to  set  up  a  meeting  with  the  guy  who  was  in  charge  of  boxing  for  Donald  Trump.  I 
believe  his  name  was  Mark  Etess.  Snipes,  his  manager  Sal,  and  I  met  with  this 
Mark  in  Atlantic  City,  he  told  us  that  a  fight  between  Damiani  and  Snipes  would 
sell.  Mark  thought  it  would  be  even  bigger  if  Snipes  had  a  high  ranking  with  one  of 
boxing's  sanctioning  bodies. 

Joe  Watts,  who  is  an  associate  in  our  family,  told  me  that  he  had  someone  in  Las 
Vegas  who  could  help  us  get  a  ranking  for  Snipes.  Watts  arranged  a  meeting  for  me 
with  Joey  Curtis,  a  boxing  referee  in  Las  Vegas.  Joey  Curtis  had  once  visited  our 
club,  the  Ravenite  Social  Club,  in  New  York  City. 

So  I  went  to  Las  Vegas  with  two  of  my  friends  and  our  wives.  After  we  had  dinner 
with  Curtis,  I  took  him  aside  and  asked  him  if  he  could  get  Snipes  moved  up  in  the 
rankings.  Curtis  said  he  could  move  Snipes  up  in  the  rankings  of  the  World  Boxing 
Council,  which  is  based  in  Mexico.  Curtis  said  that  this  would  cost  $10,000,  but,  be- 
cause it  was  a  favor  for  John  Gotti,  he  might  be  able  to  get  it  done  for  $5,000. 

My  idea  all  along  was  to  use  the  Damiani-Snipes  fight  as  a  set  up  fight  to  get 
Damiani  a  big  payday  against  Mike  Tyson.  My  plan  was  for  Snipes  to  have  a  high 
ranking,  and  then  make  it  look  good,  but  lose  to  Damiani.  I  never  discussed  this 
with  Snipes  because  Damiani  lost  to  Mercer,  which  put  Damiani  out  of  the  picture 
for  a  major  fight.  I'm  sure  that  we  would  have  had  no  problem  in  convincing  Snipes 
to  lose. 

Another  boxer  our  family  has  an  interest  in  is  Buddy  McGirt,  who  recently  lost 
the  WBC  welterweight  title.  His  manager  is  Al  Certo,  who  is  a  Gambino  family  as- 
sociate. Al  Certo  is  with  JoJo  Corozzo,  who  is  a  "made"  member  of  our  family. 

I  know  Al  Certo  is  with  our  family  because  JoJo  put  it  on  record  with  his  captain, 
Peter  Gotti.  Also,  a  "beef  came  up  between  our  family  and  the  Bufalino  family 
about  who  McGirt  was  with.  Eddie  Sciandra,  the  consigliere  of  the  Bufalino  family, 
complained  to  John  Gotti  that  the  Bufalinos  had  a  piece  of  McGirt.  Gotti  told  me  to 
arrange  a  meeting  with  Sciandra  and  JoJo  to  resolve  the  "beef."  I  actually  had  sev- 
eral meetings  with  JoJo  and  Sciandra  about  this.  JoJo  said  that  he  had  paid  Scian- 
dra some  money  to  walk  away  from  McGirt,  but  now  Sciandra  wanted  back  in  be- 
cause McGirt  had  done  well  and  was  getting  bigger  purses.  After  hearing  both  of 
them,  I  recommended  to  John  Gotti  that  JoJo  was  right,  and  that  McGirt  should 
stay  with  JoJo  and  our  family.  Eddie  Sciandra  was  not  satisfied  with  my  decision, 
and  kept  coming  back  for  more  meetings.  I  got  tired  of  meeting  with  Sciandra  about 
this,  but,  out  of  respect  for  his  position  and  age,  we  had  Frank  Locascio,  who  was 
part  of  our  administration,  continue  to  talk  to  him.  But  our  position  never  changed. 
Certo  and  McGirt  stayed  with  our  family. 

I  should  point  out  that  the  person  who  was  with  us  was  really  Al  Certo.  His  rela- 
tionship with  JoJo  Corozzo  is  how  we  had  a  piece  of  McGirt.  McGirt  is  a  fighter, 
and,  although  Certo  brought  him  by  the  club  once  and  introduced  him  to  some 
people,  it  really  wouldn't  be  fair  for  me  to  say  that  he  is  an  associate  of  organized 
crime.  But  Certo  was  with  us,  and  that  gave  us  our  interest  in  McGirt. 

Our  family  was  not  the  only  family  involved  in  boxing.  Although  I  do  not  know 
the  details,  I  know  that  several  other  families  are  involved  in  boxing  in  some  way. 
But  you  should  know  that  our  involvement  in  boxing  has  changed  from  the  way  it 


158 

used  to  be.  A  lot  of  people  think  that  organized  crime  makes  money  by  fixing  fights 
and  betting  on  the  winner.  That  really  doesn't  happen  anymore.  The  purses  have 
gotten  so  big  that  it  doesn't  make  sense  to  fix  a  fight  in  order  to  collect  on  a  bet. 
While  we  would  consider  fixing  a  fight  in  order  to  set  up  for  a  big  payday  fight — 
like  I  had  in  mind  for  Damiani — the  money  is  in  the  purses,  not  in  betting.  Besides, 
boxing  is  a  risky  business  for  bookmakers — you  couldn't  bet  big  money  on  a  fight 
even  if  you  wanted  to. 

So,  the  interest  today  is  in  getting  a  piece  of  a  successful  boxer.  Until  a  boxer 
reaches  a  certain  level,  there  is  not  much  money  to  be  made  because  the  purses  are 
small.  But,  once  a  boxer  becomes  successful,  the  family  that  has  him  can  profit  from 
that  success.  Now,  because  the  size  of  the  purses  have  gotten  so  big  over  the  past  20 
years,  organized  crime  is  more  and  more  interested  in  getting  back  into  it. 

I  will  be  happy  to  answer  any  questions  that  you  might  have  about  organized 
crime  and  boxing. 


Prepared  Statement  of  Mr.  Goodman 

My  name  is  Bob  Goodman,  and  I  am  Vice  President  and  Matchmaker  for  Madison 
Square  Garden  Boxing.  Since  we  hosted  our  first  fight  involving  John  L.  Sullivan 
nearly  a  century  ago,  the  Garden  has  been  an  upstanding  and  conscientious 
member  of  the  boxing  community.  To  ensure  our  ability  to  continue  to  bring  fights 
to  the  people  of  New  York  City,  we  have  served  as  a  promoter  of  boxing  events  in 
addition  to  our  role  as  a  world-class  venue  for  boxing  contests. 

We  are  a  promoter  in  the  classic  meaning  of  the  term — we  arrange  matches  and 
promote  them.  To  facilitate  our  role  in  this  endeavor,  we  enter  into  exclusive,  long- 
term,  promotional  agreements  with  some  fighters.  In  these  contracts,  which  are 
common  and  essential  to  the  boxing  industry,  the  promoter  receives  promotional 
rights  while  providing  the  boxer  with  financial  consideration  and  guaranteed  mini- 
mum purse  amounts  with  respect  to  future  bouts.  These  contracts  benefit  both  the 
athletes  and  the  promoters.  They  are  universally  recognized  as  essential  vehicles  by 
which  fighters  are  able  to  develop  their  skills  in  a  manner  that  will  assure  them 
fair  compensation  while,  at  the  same  time,  providing  the  promoter  with  a  fair  op- 
portunity to  generate  a  return  from  its  risk-intensive  business. 

We  serve  sole  as  a  promoter  and  venue  for  professional  fights.  Our  relationship 
with  boxers  is  arms-length,  proper,  and  legal.  None  of  the  concerns  that  have  been 
expressed  about  promoter  conflicts  of  interest  at  previous  hearings  apply  to  Madison 
Square  Garden.  We  do  not  manage,  train,  or  provide  financial  advice  to  fighters 
with  whom  we  deal. 

As  previously  communicated  to  Senator  Roth  by  Robert  Gutkowski,  president  of 
Madison  Square  Garden,  my  company  supports  the  creation  of  a  Federal  Boxing 
Commission  to  establish  uniform  national  regulations  to  govern  the  sport  of  boxing. 
We  believe  that  the  establishment  of  uniform  standards  can  help  protect  the  health 
and  safety  of  professional  fighters.  At  the  same  time,  more  effective  regulation  of 
boxing  should  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the  many  honest  individuals  and  companies 
involved  in  boxing  by  improving  public  confidence  in  the  conduct  of  the  sport. 

Because  our  views  are  similar  to  those  expressed  before  this  Subcommittee  by  Mr. 
Abraham  of  HBO  Sports  and  Mr.  Aresco  of  ESPN  3  weeks  ago,  we  will  not  cover  the 
same  ground  in  the  interest  of  time. 

I  personally  and  MSG  as  a  company  have  at  all  times  acted  forthrightly  and 
sought  in  good  faith  to  fully  comply  with  all  applicable  regulatory  provisions  of  the 
various  States  in  which  we  promote  fights.  We  have  also  cooperated  fully  with  this 
Subcommittee  and  hope  we  have  assisted  your  investigation.  Nonetheless,  a  few 
questions  have  arisen  about  our  role  in  the  match  between  James  "Buddy"  McGirt 
and  Simon  Brown  on  November  29,  1991.  This  match,  held  at  the  Mirage  Hotel  in 
Las  Vegas,  is  one  of  the  few  fights  taking  place  in  the  State  of  Nevada  with  which 
we  have  been  involved. 

The  questions  that  have  arisen  about  MSG  revolve  around  the  differences  be- 
tween two  contracts  we  signed  with  Buddy  McGirt  and  his  manager — one  a  stand- 
ard contract  required  by  the  Nevada  Athletic  Commission  and  executed  under 
Nevada  law  on  November  22,  1991,  one  week  before  the  fight,  and  a  contract  execut- 
ed on  November  26  in  what  has  been  referred  to  as  the  ''New  York  contract."  A 
cursory  examination  of  the  two  contracts  could  give  rise  to  an  interpretation  that 
we  were  attempting  to  bypass  Nevada  regulatory  requirements.  However,  an  exami- 
nation of  the  actual  facts  clearly  demonstrates  that  not  to  be  the  case. 

In  paragraph  2  of  the  Nevada  standard  contract,  we  only  noted  the  actual  purse 
amount  and  did  not  make  reference  to  $75,000  in  training  expenses  we  had  agreed 


159 

to  pay  to  Mr.  McGirt  and  his  manager,  an  amount  mentioned  in  the  New  York  con- 
tract signed  four  days  later.  We  did  not  include  the  training  expenses,  which  had 
previously  been  paid  to  Mr.  McGirt  and  his  manager,  in  paragraph  2  for  the  simple 
reason  that  we  concluded  that  the  Nevada  form  agreement  only  required  the  actual 
purse  amount.  We  continue  to  believe  that  this  interpretation  is  consistent  with  the 
language  of  the  Nevada  form  agreement. 

The  training  expenses  we  contracted'to  pay  for  the  McGirt/Brown  fight,  approxi- 
mately 10  percent  of  the  total  amount  paid,  were  customary  and  fully  consistent 
with  the  standard  practices  of  professional  boxing,  not  only  within  Nevada  but 
throughout  the  United  States.  We  acknowledge  that  we  paid  these  training  ex- 
penses without  the  prior  approval  of  the  Nevada  Athletic  Commission.  We  were  to- 
tally unaware  of  any  obligation  to  secure  Nevada  Athletic  Commission  approval 
before  paying  those  expenses  in  advance  of  the  fight.  Had  we  known  about  this  re- 
quirement, we  would  have  simply  requested  the  requisite  approval.  We  had  no 
reason  not  to;  given  that  we  were  following  standard  industry  practices,  there  is 
simply  no  doubt  in  our  mind  that  a  request  made  by  MSG  or  Mr.  McGirt's  manager 
would  have  been  approved.  Our  actions  were  honest  and  straightforward.  If  there 
was  a  mistake,  it  was  entirely  inadvertent. 

The  second  issue  that  has  arisen  concerns  a  provision  of  the  New  York  contract 
which  purportedly  gives  MSG  the  exclusive  rights  to  promote  Mr.  McGirt's  next  five 
bouts.  The  staff  of  this  Subcommittee  suggested  in  a  public  statement  on  March  10 
that  this  provision  was  executed  as  part  of  the  New  York  contract  in  order  to  avoid 
Nevada  rules  against  "multiple  option  contracts."  While  we  understand  how  one 
could  draw  this  conclusion,  nothing  could  be  further  from  the  truth. 

The  staffs  March  10  statement  has  a  very  concise  description  of  multiple  option 
contracts,  noting  that  "[i]n  a  typical  option  contract  the  promoter  of  the  current 
champion  agrees  to  give  a  potential  challenger  an  opportunity  for  a  match  only  if 
the  challenger  agrees  that,  should  he  win,  the  challenger  will  fight  exclusively  for 
the  promoter  for  a  certain  number  of  future  fights."  Thus,  a  multiple  option  con- 
tract constitutes  an  agreement  between  a  professional  fighter  and  the  promoter  of  a 
rival  boxer,  where  the  first  fighters  and  the  rival's  promoter  have  no  contractual 
relationship  at  the  time  the  fight  and  the  option  contract  is  executed. 

This  description,  however,  does  not  describe  the  reality  of  our  relationship  with 
Mr.  McGirt  at  the  time  of  his  fight  with  Simon  Brown.  At  that  time,  MSG  and  Mr. 
McGirt  were  already  parties  to  a  long-term,  pre-existing  promotional  agreement 
under  which  McGirt,  for  substantial  consideration,  had  granted  to  MSG  the  exclu- 
sive right  to  promote,  or  at  our  election  to  co-promote,  all  of  his  bouts  for  five  years. 
As  I  noted  earlier,  such  agreements  are  common  and  universally  recognized  as  bene- 
ficial to  fighters  because  they  are  able  to  develop  their  skills  while  being  assured  of 
fair  compensation. 

In  this  context,  the  "options"  provision  of  the  New  York  contract  granted  MSG  no 
rights  we  did  not  already  have  in  our  prior  arrangements  with  Mr.  McGirt,  and  it 
imposed  no  new  restrictions  and  conditions  on  him. 

The  provision  was  included  in  the  New  York  contract  for  one  reason  only,  one 
that  had  nothing  to  do  with  our  legal  obligations  and  rights  with  respect  to  Mr. 
McGirt.  Under  the  terms  of  the  McGirt/Brown  match,  Mr.  Brown's  promoter  Don 
King  had  the  right  to  co-promote  with  MSG  the  next  five  McGirt  fights. 

MSG  acceded  to  King's  request  for  co-promotional  rights  for  the  five  bouts  with 
the  full  knowledge  and  urging  of  Mr.  McGirt's  manager.  MSG  decided  to  grant  such 
rights  because  it  permitted  the  McGirt/Brown  fight  to  take  place; — a  bout  that 
would  clearly  advance  McGirt's  career;  in  fact,  McGirt  won  this  fight  making  him 
the  world  welterweight  champion.  It  is  critical  to  point  out  that  this  grant  had  no 
effect  whatsoever  on  McGirt's  future  earnings,  his  legal  rights,  or  his  legal  responsi- 
bilities. 

Before  the  McGirt/Brown  bout,  Don  King  made  repeated  requests  for  evidence 
that  MSG  had  the  right  to  promote,  and  thereby  to  grant  co-promotion  rights,  to 
Mr.  McGirt's  next  five  matches.  In  the  hectic  days  and  under  the  intense  pressure 
of  pre-fight  activities.  I  decided  that  the  five-bout  provision  in  the  New  York  con- 
tract should  be  entered  into  with  the  thought  that  it  could  be  shown  to  Mr.  King 
and  thus  allay  his  concerns.  After  executing  the  New  York  contract,  I  realized  that 
as  a  means  of  addressing  Mr.  King's  concerns  it  served  no  purpose  in  view  of  our 
long  term  promotional  agreement  with  McGirt.  Ultimately,  I  was  able  to  convince 
Mr.  King,  without  showing  him  the  relevant  documentation,  that  by  virtue  of  our 
promotional  agreement  with  Mr.  McGirt  we  possessed  the  necessary  promotional 
rights. 

The  New  York  contract  did  not  violate  Nevada  rules  proscribing  multiple  option 
contracts  because  the  "options"  contemplated  by  that  agreement  had  no  effect  in 


160 

light  of  our  long-term  promotional  agreement  with  Mr.  McGirt.  It  neither  in  sub- 
stance nor  spirit  represented  an  effort  to  evade  or  circumvent  Nevada's  rules  on 
multiple  option  contracts. 

Mr.  Chairman,  in  conclusion,  I  would  again  state  that  Madison  Square  Garden 
supports  the  effort  of  this  Subcommittee  to  examine  professional  boxing  and  to 
enact  meaningful  national  reform  legislation.  I  hope  that  my  statement  is  helpful 
and  that  I  have  answered  any  concerns  raised  at  previous  hearings  about  our  role.  I 
will  be  pleased  to  answer  any  questions  you  might  have. 


Prepared  Statement  of  Mr.  Licari 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  this  Subcommittee: 

After  reading  the  press  release  setting  forth  the  basis  for  this  investigation  and 
these  hearings,  I  believe  it  necessary  to  provide  a  brief  opening  statement  for  the 
record  regarding  my  investment  in  Bobby  Czyz  and  our  personal  relationship  so 
that  hopefully  all  will  view  this  relationship  in  its  proper  perspective.  Let  me  start 
by  saying  that  I  welcome  you  to  confirm  with  Mr.  Czyz  or  his  professional  staff  the 
accuracy  of  anything  I  may  tell  you  regarding  our  twelve  year  relationship  or  the 
financial  transactions  between  us. 

Approximately  30  years  ago  I,  along  with  my  partner  started  a  company  known 
as  Solid  State.  Together  we  worked  five,  six  and  often  seven  days  per  week  to  build 
it  into  a  very  successful  distributor  of  computer  components  which  has  furnished 
employment  for  many,  many  people.  The  continued  financial  success  of  Solid  State 
has  allowed  us  to  make  other  investments  both  within  and  outside  of  its  industry. 

One  of  those  investments  was  a  $300,000  investment  made  in  1981  for  the  pur- 
chase of  a  26  percent  interest  in  the  net  proceeds  to  be  derived  by  Bobby  Czyz  for 
his  boxing  matches.  That  investment  was  not  done  in  a  surreptitious  manner  and 
has  always  been  open  to  the  scrutiny  of  anyone  having  a  legitimate  purpose  to  do 
so.  Our  entitlement  to  26  percent  of  the  fighter's  net  proceeds  was  initially  limited 
in  duration  and  gave  us  absolutely  no  voice  in  any  issue  relating  to  the  fighter  or 
the  actual  boxing  event  itself.  To  this  date  neither  I  nor  my  partner  have  ever  been 
directly  or  indirectly  involved  in  any  decision  relating  to  the  training  of  Bobby  Czyz, 
who  he  fought,  where  he  fought,  the  promotion  of  the  fight  or  any  other  aspect  of 
the  fighter  or  the  boxing  matches  in  which  he  was  engaged.  Nor  has  our  opinion 
ever  been  solicited  regarding  any  of  these  issues.  In  fact,  I  have  rarely  ever  spoken 
to  his  trainer  or  any  of  his  professional  staff.  My  sole  involvement  has  been  after 
the  event,  and  even  at  that  we  rarely  questioned  Mr.  Czyz  when  he  informed  us  as 
to  the  amount  of  his  net  proceeds. 

To  this  end  the  Committee  should  be  aware  that  since  1981  my  partner  and  I 
have  received  a  total  of  $288,277  returned  on  our  $300,000  investment  over  twelve 
years.  During  that  time  period  bobby  has  also  asked  us  as  his  friends  for  various 
loans  such  as  on  one  occasion  he  needed  monies  to  enable  him  to  pay  for  his  wed- 
ding and  on  another  occasion  he  needed  monies  to  purchase  a  home.  In  total  his 
loans  have  amounted  to  $80,000  of  which  only  $30,000  has  been  repaid  to  date. 
These  loans  have  always  been  interest  free. 

Thus,  of  our  $300,000  investment,  we  have  seen  a  return  of  $288,277  and  are  owed 
an  additional  $50,000,  leaving  us  with  a  net  return  of  $238,277  over  twelve  years. 
Again,  all  of  these  financial  transactions  are  documented  and  have  always  been 
available  for  review  by  the  appropriate  authorities,  such  as  your  Committee. 

You  should  also  be  aware  that  often  Mr.  Czyz  has  been  unable  to  pay  us  our  share 
after  a  fight  advising  us  that  his  obligations  to  the  Internal  Revenue  Service  con- 
sumed his  share  of  the  pie.  For  instance,  in  his  last  two  fights  in  Las  Vegas  he  ad- 
vised us  that  our  share  was  $73,000  and  $38,000,  neither  of  which  did  he  pay  be- 
cause of  his  financial  inability  to  do  so.  We  have  always  trusted  Bobby's  representa- 
tions to  us  concerning  the  amount  of  his  net  proceeds  as  well  as  his  statements  that 
he  could  not  pay  us  our  share  but  would  make  it  up  to  us  in  future  fights. 

Thus,  I  think  you  can  see  that  our  investment  in  Bobby  Czyz  has  been  less  than  a 
successful  business  venture.  However,  our  relationship  has  always  been  warm,  and  I 
believe  Bobby  would  confirm  to  you  that  we  have  always  done  our  very  best  to  help 
him  through  some  difficult  setbacks  in  his  life.  When  considering  the  issue  of 
whether  or  not  Andrew  Licari's  investment  has  been  of  value  to  the  life  and  boxing 
career  of  Bobby  Czyz,  or  detracted  from  it,  I  respectfully  suggest  to  you  that  this 
question  is  best  answered  by  Bobby  himself.  As  you  all  know,  he  is  an  extremely 
intelligent  young  man  who  can  think  for  himself.  I  am  willing  to  live  with  his 
answer. 


161 

The  Committee  should  also  be  aware  that  this  investment  in  Bobby  Czyz  has  been 
the  sole  investment  made  by  me  or  my  partner  in  the  boxing  industry.  The  Commit- 
tee should  further  be  aware  that  we  have  earned  no  monies  from  Mr.  Czyz  or  his 
boxing  matches,  other  than  those  I  have  set  forth.  There  has  been  no  ancillary 
income  from  our  investment  in  Mr.  Czyz. 

I  believe  it  also  important  to  provide  you  with  a  brief  statement  concerning  any 
alleged  involvement  by  me  in  any  criminal  activity.  I  unequivocally  deny  being  in- 
volved in  criminal  activity  of  any  nature.  I  further  do  unequivocally  deny  being  in- 
volved in  any  organization  which  is  involved  in  criminal  activity.  I  have  confirmed 
to  your  staff  that  approximately  30  years  ago  I  was  arrested  for  the  crime  of  posses- 
sion of  lottery  slips.  I  entered  a  plea  of  guilty  to  that  charge  and  served  a  probation- 
ary term  while  paying  a  fine.  I  have  not  been  convicted  of  a  crime  since  that  date, 
and  the  two  arrests  shown  on  my  record  thereafter  were  dismissed  because  they 
were  baseless.  I  know  of  no  one  who  could  truthfully  testify  in  any  court  of  law  that 
I  am  engaged  in  criminal  activity. 

Your  staff  has  asked  me  questions  concerning  my  relationship  to  many  individ- 
uals, some  of  whom  have  been  reported  in  the  newspapers  to  be  engaged  in  orga- 
nized criminal  activity.  I  have  truthfully  advised  your  staff  that  I  am  familiar  with 
some  of  those  individuals  and  have  known  them  since  childhood.  Your  staff  will  also 
confirm  that  many  of  the  names  that  they  asked  me  about  I  was  totally  unfamiliar 
with.  While  I  have  maintained  casual,  friendly  relationships  with  individuals  about 
whom  the  Committee  has  asked  me,  my  relationship  with  those  individuals  has 
been  nothing  more  than  a  casual,  friendly  relationship.  I  do  not  see  them  on  a  regu- 
lar basis  and  may  not  see  or  hear  from  many  of  these  individuals  for  many  years. 
The  essential  point  I  wish  to  make  to  this  Committee  is  that  my  friendliness  with 
any  individual  has  never  affected  in  any  way  whatsoever  my  business  or  personal 
relationship  with  Bobby  Czyz. 

In  essence,  I  simply  wish  to  convey  to  this  Subcommittee  that  I  made  an  invest- 
ment in  Bobby  Czyz  several  years  ago  of  significant  monies  legitimately  earned  from 
my  business.  That  investment  has  not  proven  to  be  a  good  one.  Further,  while  my 
causal,  friendly  relationships  with  individuals  with  whom  I  grew  up  may  have  con- 
tinued from  time  to  time,  I  am  not  engaged  in  any  criminal  activity,  nor  am  I  a 
member  of  any  group  that  is  engaged  in  criminal  activity.  I  am  simply  a  reputable 
businessman  of  long  standing  whose  daily  activities  include  working  8  to  10  hours 
per  day  and  going  home  to  his  wife,  daughter  and  grandchild  at  the  end  of  the  busi- 
ness day. 


163 


«■*  -c   S-  «  o»  £ 


^J      f   *   ?»  1  I 


O 

£.§  liJk. 

c 

*  s   E  -a  6 

m  9-o  o  o 

X 

o 

Iran 
IBFS 
World 
erWB 
World 

/ 

CD 

e      5           : 

<u 

c 

o 

(/> 

0) 

0 

•*- 

o 

JU 

a. 

c 

£ 

E        .9 

"~ 

5_  | 

C 
0) 

E 

Bobby  Czyz 
rweighl  World 
rmer  IBF  Ligh 
ghl  World  Ch 

f  AtleaslX 

0 

S  u.   I 

*» 

E       5" 

| if  I  g>5 

i all *| 
*    I J  t-  °  S I 


£  S 


164 


(/) 

£ 
3 
LL 

*f- 
O 

o 

Li. 


CqCT> 

°co  en 

<"!~   CD 

o  SZ 

2    Q)    w' 

r     —   CO 
>,  QJ   O) 

=>°    </) 

CD  CD  ro 


D. 

:*: 

D 

</> 

c   i- 
o  «J 

11 

■o  o 
£a 

°-  6 
wo 


0) 


-o-S, 


9      «  E 
c/)      c  5 

2  0    <D  .3 

IJ!I 

^s  2  5;  t, 

™  o  aJB  r 
►  a)  o  o  t-  C5\ 

3  ,    <=>    o  _ 
O"  O  ' 


</> 


r-     TO     0) 

.33    g 

ro  (A  i 
cc  a 


<  CM  J  in 


-  «  O  •£  13 

o  Jo  cue  £  c 

O  >0  O  3  O 

£  ■£  o  0>  « 
■-<gSf 

gsg§§ 

10  x:  ni  v 
9-  a>£  £ 

3  o  Dl 


CE  o 


O 
<7? 


<M 


8    * 

s 


(A   0-*£° 

*».E  o  wog 


165 


-■ 


m 


1 


! 


3  o  i 

M 

LI1U 


L  JiUUiiL-J 


MM 


T\ 


1*1 


§ 


n 


i  E 


ill  HIli 


O  ' 

iii 

B 

2b 


rrm"'"" 

i1     ii 

! 

A 


15 


^ 


8     * 


l  ►6801G-01ZO-" 


ii'  :sg 


■Wlv 


i  Si 


N 


166 


a 

c 
,        ,    |       I    >    ,  -. 


§  -9 


S     * 


HS<  ! 


use 


i 


167 


Senate  Permanent  Subcommittee 
on  Investigations 

EXHIBIT  #__£ 


168 


gas 


S«nat«  Pwrmanwrt  SuftcowinittW 
«i  Investigations 

EXHIBIT  #_i5 _ 


UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

COMMITTEE  ON  GOVERNMENTAL  AFFAIRS 

PERMANENT  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS 

_________________  -x 

In  Re:  : 

CORRUPTION  IN  PROFESSIONAL  BOXING   : 


Friday,  April  30,  1993 
Washington,  D.C.  20011 
The  deposition  of  IRAN  BARKLEY ,  called  for 
examination  by  counsel  for  the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on 
Investigations,  in  the  above  matter,  pursuant  to  notice 
at  Russell  Senate  Office  Building,  Room  192,  Washington, 
D.C,  convened  at  11:40  a.m.,  before  Gwen  A.  Schlemmer, 
a  notary  public  in  and  for  the  District  of  Columbia,  when 
were  present  on  behalf  of  the  parties: 


MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN 
507  C  Sueei.  N.E 
^ashinpon.  D  C      2000: 


169 


APPEARANCES: 


On  Behalf  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Permanent 
Subcommittee  on  Investigations: 

DANIEL  F.  RINZEL,  ESQ. 

W.  LEIGHTON  LORD  III,  ESQ. 

STEPHEN  H.  LEVIN,  ESQ. 

On  Behalf  of  Iran  Barkley: 

MARK  H.  TUOHEY  III,  ESQ. 
Reed,  Smith,  Shaw  &  McClay 
1200  18th  Street,  N.W. 
Washington,  D.C.   20036 
202/457-8668 


ALSO  PRESENT: 


HAROLD  LIPPMAN,  Investigator 

Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations 


R.  JEFFERY  GREENE,  Investigator 
Reed,  Smith,  Shaw  &  McClay 


EXHIBITS 


3 

2] 


MILLER  REPORTING  CO  .  INC 
107  C  Street.  N  E 
Washington.  DC      20002 


170 


AFFIDAVIT  OF  IRAN  BARKLEY 

Iran  Barkley,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says: 

1.  I  am  a  professional  boxer  and  I  currently  reside  at 
326  Prospect  Avenue,  Apartment  10-G,  Hackensack,  New  Jersey  07601. 
This  affidavit  is  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  my  absence  at  the 
April  1,  1993  hearing  before  the  United  States  Senate  Permanent 
Subcommittee  on  Investigations. 

2.  In  March,  1993,  my  attorney  informed  me  that  the 
Subcommittee  wanted  to  subpoena  me  to  testify  at  a  hearing  about 
the  information  I  had  previously  given  the  Subcommittee  staff  in 
deposition.   I  authorized  my  attorney  to  accept  service  of  the 
subpoena.   I  was  later  advised  by  my  attorney  of  the  April  1,  1993 
hearing  date,  and  I  intended  to  fully  comply. 

3.  In  the  last  week  of  March,  1993,  I  moved  my  family 
from  upstate  New  York  to  New  Jersey.   During  the  last  weekend  in 
March,  and  due  in  part  to  the  move  and  the  weather,  I  got  a  bad 
case  of  the  flu.   I  was  in  bed  with  the  stomach  flu  for  about  10 
days. 

4.  During  this  period  when  I  was  in  bed  with  the  flu,  I 
completely  forgot  about  the  hearing  date.   Unfortunately,  having 
just  moved  into  my  new  home,  arrangements  had  not  been  finalized 
for  telephone  service,  and  so  it  was  not  until  early  April  that 
the  telephone  was  hooked  up.   As  a  result,  my  attorney  could  not 


171 


get  in  touch  with  me,  and  I  failed  to  get  in  touch  with  him 
because  of  the  illness. 

5.   I  apologize  to  the  Subcommittee  for  any 
inconvenience  my  absence  has  caused.   Although  my  illness  would 
have  prevented  me  from  appearing  on  April  1,  this  illness  was  no 
excuse  for  not  making  an  attempt  to  notify  my  attorney.   Due  to 
the  fact  that  I  spent  the  last  week  in  March  in  bed,  it  completely 
slipped  my  mind.   I  want  to  emphasize,  however,  that  it  has  always 
been  my  intent  to  cooperate  with  the  Subcommittee. 


Subscribed  and  sworn  to 
before  me  this  30jtjQday 
of  April,  1993 


1/- 


;aryT] 


^MA^ 


otaryTPublic 


f\,     hj^<*C<?rt^*yfy-, 


VIRGINIA  R.  CUMMIH3S 


My    commission    expires       Nntflry  Pnhlir,  District  bl  Columbia 
My  Commission  Expires  July  31,  1994 


-2- 


172 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

I         12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO  .  IN(2  5 
50"  C  Succi.  N  E 
Washington.  D  C      20002 


PROCEEDINGS 
Whereupon, 

IRAN  BARKLEY 
was  called  as  a  witness  and,  after  being  first  duly  sworn, 
was  examined  and  testified  as  follows: 

MR.  LORD:   Would  your  attorney  identify  himself  for 
the  record. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   My  name  is  Mark  Tuohey .   I  am  in  the 
firm  of  Reed,  Smith,  Shaw  &  McClay.   My  colleague  is  Jeff 
Greene,  from  the  firm,  is  with  me,  and  we  represent  Mr. 
Barkley . 

I  have  the  original  of  the  affidavit  that  I  faxed 
over  to  you,  at  your  request. 

MR.  LORD:   This  is  an  affidavit  of  Iran  Barkley.   I 
would  like  to  have  this  marked  as  Exhibit  1  and  made  a  part 
of  the  record. 

[Exhibit  No.  1  was  marked  for 
identification. ] 
EXAMINATION  BY  COUNSEL  FOR  THE 
PERMANENT  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS 
BY  MR.  LORD: 
Q    Mr.  Barkley,  I  am  handing  you  what  we  have  marked 
Exhibit  No.  1.   Would  you  identify  that  for  the  record, 
please . 

A    Yes,  this  is  an  affidavit  that  my  attorney  handed 


173 


1  to  me,  to  sign  it,  for  the  record. 

2  Q    Are  all  the  statements  made  in  that  affidavit  true? 

3  A    Yes,  it  is. 

4  Q    We  would  like  to  ask  you  some  more  questions  about 

5  the  affidavit  in  one  second. 

6  Could  you  state  your  name  for  the  record. 

7  A    Iran  Barkley. 

8  Q     I  will  make  a  brief  statement  before  we  stert  with 

9  the  questions. 

10  The  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations  has 

11  been  conducting  an  investigation  of  corruption  in  profes- 

$         12  sional  boxing.   As  part  of  the  investigation,  the  Subcommit- 

13  tee  staff  has  taken  depositions,  among  other  things,  and  the 

14  Subcommittee  has  held  a  series  of  public  hearings. 

15  On  December  16,  1992,  the  Subcommittee  took  Iran 

16  Barkley' s  deposition.   That  deposition  has  been  made  a  part 

17  of  the  hearing  record,  and  we  will  be  referring  to  that 

18  throughout  this  deposition. 

19  Some  time  after  that  deposition,  the  Subcommittee 

20  subpoenaed  Mr.  Barkley  to  appear  at  a  public  hearing  that  was 

21  held  on  April  1,  1993.   Mr.  Barkley  did  not  appear  at  that 

22  hearing  and,  for  that  reason,  we  are,  today,  taking  his 

23  deposition. 

24  Mr.    Barkley,    I    would   like   to   start   by   asking   you   a 
uiu^r reporting co. ini2 5  few  questions    about    the  Affidavit   of    Iran   Barkley,    which    is 

S07  C  Street.  N.E 
STajkington ,  D  C      20002 


gas 


174 


Exhibit  No.  1.   Is  it  true  that  your  attorney  informed  you 
that  the  Subcommittee  wanted  to  subpoena  you  to  testify  at  a 
3 I  public  hearing? 

4  A    Yeah,  he  informed  me  but,  at  the  time  that  he 

5  informed  me,  I  was  sick. 

6  Q     I  will  ask  you  the  questions  in  a  series,  if  you 

7  can  just  give  a  yes  or  no  answer  to  them. 

8  Did  you  then  authorize  your  attorney  to  accept 

9  service  of  the  subpoena  on  your  behalf? 

10  A    Yes. 

11  Q    Did  your  attorney  then  advise  you  that  the  hearing 
:         12  date  had  been  set  for  April  1,  1993? 

13  A    Yes. 

14  Q    Were  you  intending  to  appear  before  the  Subcom- 

15  mittee  on  April  1,  1993? 

16  A    Yes,  I  was. 

17  Q     Is  it  true  that,  during  the  period  immediately 

18  prior  to  the  hearing,  April  1,  1993,  you  were  in  the  process 

19  of  moving  your  family  from  Upstate  New  York  to  New  Jersey? 

20  A    Yes. 

21  Q    And  that,  also  during  that  period  of  time,  you 

22  contracted  the  flu  --  a  bad  stomach  flu  --  for  a  period  of 
2  3  around  10  days? 

~   24        A     Yes. 
muxeh reporting co . me 5       q     in  your  affidavit,  you  state  that  the  reason  that 

J07  C  Sitcct    N  E 
Washington.  DC      20002 


175 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

J  12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  m£  5 
50"  C  Streci.  N.E 
Wajhinpon.  DC      20002 


you  forgot  about  the  hearing  date  was  that  you  had  the  flu 
and  were  in  bed  suffering  from  the  flu. 

A    Yes. 

Q    Then  is  it  true  that  you  forgot  about  the  Apr 
1993,  hearing  date? 

A    Yes,  I  had. 

Q    When  did  you  remember  that  there  was  an  April  1, 
1993,  hearing  date  that  you  were  to  appear  before? 

A     I  remembered  when  I  started  seeing,  you  know, 
and  pieces  on  the  news . 

Q    So  you  did  not  recall  the  hearing  date  beforev 

A    No. 

Q    During  this  time  when  you  were  sick  with  the  flu 
and  you  were  moving,  did  you  at  any  time  try  to  contact  your 
attorney  about  your  illness  and  your  situation? 

A    Yes,  I  did. 

Q    When  was  this? 

A    This  was,  I  think,  the  time  before,  like,  1 
ill.   I  had  spoken  to  my  mother,  and  I  was  telling  her, 
because  I  didn't  have  a  phone  at  the  time  --  I  called  her 
from  a  pay  phone  --  and  I  told  her,  "I'm  moving,  and  I'm  real 
sick  and,  if  my  attorney  calls,  just  let  him  know,  because  I 
don't  really  know  what  date  I  was  supposed  to  go  down.' 

Q    Did  your  attorney,  in  fact,  contact  you  during  this 
period? 


176 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILL£H  REPORTING  CO..  IN(2  5 
i07  C  Succt.  N  E. 
Washington.  DC      20002 


A    Well,  he  contacted  my  mother,  and  it  was  a  message 
told  to  me. 

Q    What  was  the  message? 

A    The  message  was  that  I  was  supposed  to  be  down 
here.   I  then  replied  back  to  her  the  reason  why  I  couldn't 
come . 

Q    Then  did  your  mother  then  communicate  this  to  your 
attorney? 

A    Yes,  she  did. 

Q    When  it  came  time  for  the  hearing,  around  April  1, 
did  you  then  try  to  contact  your  mother  or  contact  anyone 
about  your  illness? 

A    Yes,  I  stayed  in  contact  with  her,  but  I  was  like 
lost  in  sources  somewhere,  you  know,  when  I  got  sick.   I  was, 
like,  going  back  and  forth  hospitals.   I  kept  missing  calls 
on  him  and  he  kept  missing  calls  on  me. 

Q    At  about  the  time  of  April  1,  1993,  did  your 
attorney  call  you  or  talk  to  you  directly  about  you  appear- 
ing? 

A    Yes.   He  called  me.   He  got  word  to  me  that  I  was 
supposed  to  appear.   My  mother  related  the  information  to  me, 
and  I  then  called  him,  when  I  got  situated,  which  my  phones 
were  still  not  on,  yet.   So  I  went  to  my  mother's  house  and 
then  I  contacted  him. 

Q    What  did  you  say  to  him  when  you  contacted  him 


177 


1  then? 

2  A    I  told  him,  I  said,  "I  have  the  flu  and  I'm  very 

3  sick  and  I'm  not  going  to  be  able  to  make  it." 

4  Q     When  was  this? 

5  A     I  can't  remember  the  exact  date. 

6  BY  MR.  RINZEL: 

7  Q    Was  that  after  the  hearing  was  already  held? 

8  A    It  was  like  after  the  hearing  was  all  over  and 

9  everything,  I  guess,  you  know,  because  I  told  him,  I  said, 

10  "Well,  if  they  still  want  me  to  come,  I'll  come."   I  didn't 

11  know  at  that  time  that  I  was  supposed  to  appear. 

12  BY  MR.  LORD: 

13  Q    Was  there  any  way  for  your  attorney  to  contact  you 

14  directly  immediately  before  the  hearing? 

15  A    No,  there  wasn't. 

16  Q    Why  was  this? 

17  A    Because  I  was  moving  and  I  didn't  have  no  phones. 

18  Q     You  mentioned  that  you  discussed  this  with  your 

19  mother  because  she  was  relaying  messages  to  you.   Did  you 

20  |  discuss  your  appearing  before  the  Subcommittee  with  any  other 

21  individuals? 

22  A    No. 

23  Q     Did  anyone  discuss  your  appearing  before  the 

24  Subcommittee  with  you? 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO.,  INQ>  5  A  NO  . 

50"  C  Sueet.  NE 
WajhtDgton.  DC      20002 


178 


gas 


9 
10 
11 
I  12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
-   24 

UB.LER  REPORTING  CO.,  INC2  5 
50"  C  Sum.  N.E 
^ajhington.  D  C      20002 


Q    Did  you  talk  to  your  trainer  or  any  of  the  boxing 
people  you  work  with  about  your  appearing  before  the  Subcom- 
mittee? 

A     I  have  spoke  to  no  one  but  my  mother.   At  that  time 
that  I  was  supposed  to  appear,  I  felt  in  me  I  was  saying, 
hey,  I  know  I'm  supposed  to  go  down  there,  I  think.   The  only 
other  person  I  spoke  to  was  my  fiancee,  I  think.   I  said,  "I 
think  I'm  supposed  to  be  there,  but  I  don't  know  how  to  get  ir 
touch  with  --,  you  know,  the  dates  or  whatever."   I  said, 
"But  I'm  sick  and  I'm  lost  in  this  thing.   I  am  hallucinating 
a  little  bit.   I  don't  know.   I  am  lost  on  these  dates." 

Q    What  is  the  name  of  your  fiancee? 

A    Laura  Smith. 

Q    At  the  time  immediately  preceding  the  hearing, 
there  were  press  reports  about  the  hearings  coming  out . 
People  were  talking  about  them.   Did  any  of  the  boxing  press 
try  to  contact  you  about  your  future  appearance  before  the 
Subcommittee? 

A    No  one.   No  one  at  all. 

Q    Any  time  after  your  fight  On  February  13th,  when 
you  were  talking  to  a  lot  of  people  --  you  were  in  Las  Vegas 
--  did  anyone  talk  to  you  then  about  your  appearing  before 
the  Subcommittee? 

A    No,  nothing  like  that  was  discussed  about  appearing 
to  the  Committee,  or  whatever.   I  didn't  think  many  people 


179 


9 

10 
11 

?  12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO.,  In2  5 
50"  C  Sued.  N.E 
qTaihingron    DC      20002 


LO 


knew  about  it . 

Q    Some  boxing  people  whom  we  have  spoken  to,  probab- 
ly, were  interested  in  this  topic.   A  couple  of  them  --  Stan 
Hoffman,  whom  we  have  spoken  to  --  did  Stan  Hoffman  talk  to 
you  about  your  appearing  before  the  Subcommittee? 
A    No,  he  didn't. 

Q     Did  you  talk  to  Stan  about  that? 
A    Never  did. 

Q    How  about  your  advisor,  Lenny  Minuto;  did  either  of 
you  discuss  your  appearing  before  the  Subcommittee? 
A    No. 

Q    Were  you  aware  that  Lenny  Minuto  had  been  sub- 
poenaed, and  he  was  coming  to  the  April  1,  1993,  hearing? 

A    No,  I  wasn't.   I  wasn't  aware  that  he  was  coming  to 
the  April  1  hearing,  not  at  all. 

q    Were  you  aware  that  he  was  going  to  come  to  the 
Senate  to  talk  about  his  activities  in  professional  boxing? 

A     I  wasn't  aware  that  he  was  even  going  to  come.   You 
know,  I  mean,  as  far  as  I  knew  from  Mr.  Arum,  I  think 
mentioning  that  I  had  to  come  to  something  like  this,  he 
never  mentioned  that  Lenny  was  going  to  be  here. 

q     So  Bob  Arum  was  aware  that  you  were  going  to  appear 
before  the  Subcommittee? 

A    Yeah,  he  gave  me  some  papers  on  it  or  something,  I 

think . 


180 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

1{ 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

~   24 

M[U£R  REPORTING  CO..  mQ  5 
507  CSurci.  N  E 
Washington,  D  C      20002 


Q    What  papers  were  those? 

A    That  I  had  to  come  to  see  a  Committee  or  something 
--  a  hearing  or  something  to  discuss  boxing. 

Q    Bob  Arum  gave  you  papers  regarding  your  appearance 
before  the  Subcommittee? 

A    Not  papers.   He  mentioned  it.   He  had  papers  in  his 
hand  saying  that  you  might  go  before  the  Subcommittee 
hearing,  to  hear  about  this  boxing  stuff. 

Q    Are  you  talking  about  newspapers  or  documents? 

A    Newspapers,  like,  you  know,  just  mentioning  that 
you  might  have  to  go  down  and  testify,  or  something. 
I  said,  "About  what? 

He  said,  "Boxing,"  or  something.   He  said,  "But 
it ' s  nothing .  " 

I  said,  "Okay.  " 

Q     Besides  saying  that  it  was  nothing,  what  else  did 
Bob  Arum  tell  you  about  testifying  before  the  Subcommittee? 

A    Nothing . 

Q     Did  Bob  Arum  discuss  any  of  his  meetings  with  the 
Subcommittee? 

A    No. 

Q     Did  he  give  you  any  advice  -- 

A    No. 

Q     --  on  how  you  should  discuss  your  activities  with 
the  Subcommittee? 


181 


gas 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
-   24 

UIU£R  REPORTING  CO..  INlg  5 
^0"  C  Street.  N  E 
Tishington.  D  C      20002 


12 


A     No. 

BY  MR.  RINZEL: 
Q    Where  was  this  meeting  with  Bob  Arum?   Was  this  in 

Las  Vegas? 

A  This  was  in  Vegas,  I  believe. 

Q  Was  this  before  or  after  your  fight  with  Toney? 

A  I  can't  really  remember.   It  was,  like,  maybe, 

after.  I  don't  know. 

Q  After  the  fight  with  Toney? 

A  It  might  have  been  after. 

Q  Where  were  you  at  the  time?   Were  you  in  Bob  Arum's 

offices  -- 

A  No. 

q  __  or  where  were  you? 

A  I  think  I  was  coming  to  the  arena. 

Q  Coming  to  the  arena? 

A  Like,  Caesars  Palace. 

Q  So  you  were  —  what?  —  in  a  restaurant  or  a  room? 

A  No.  I  was  getting  ready  to  walk  to,  I  believe,  it 
was  like  the  press  conference.  I  don't  know.  Like,  a  semi- 
press  conference  or  something. 

q  So  this  was  a  press  conference  after  the  fight? 

A  It  was,  like,  a  little  press  conference  before  the 

fight,  I  think,  in  the  afternoon. 

Q  Before  the  fight? 


182 


MILL£R  REPORTING  CO..  II 
507  CStrm.  N.E 
Waihinpon,  D  C     20002 


1  A  Yeah. 

2  Q    And  then  Bob  Arum  was,  of  course,  at  this  press 

3  conference  because  he  was  the  promoter  of  the  fight;  right? 

4  A    Yes . 

5  Q    Were  you  just  together  alone,  or  was  there  a  group 

6  of  people  around,  or  what? 

7  A    We  was  together  alone.   He,  like,  just  mentioned 

8  something  that  I  might  be  going  to  a  hearing. 

9  Q    And  then  he  had  some  papers  in  his  hand? 

10  A    Yeah.   I  don't  know  what  the  papers  was.   He  had 

11  some  papers  in  his  hand. 

12  Q     Did  he  try  to  show  you  the  papers? 

13  A    No,  he  did  not. 

14  Q    What  did  you  think  the  papers  were?   Was  he  reading 

15  from  something  or  what? 

16  A    No .   He  just  told  me  that  I  might  have  to  go  to  a 

17  hearing.   I  said,  "Okay."   I  said,  "I'll  go."   I  said,  "What 

18  is  it  about?" 

19  He  said,  "Just  go." 

20  Q    Had  you  heard  from  your  attorney  before  that  time? 

21  Were  you  aware  already  that  a  subpoena  had  been  issued  for 

22  you  for  the  hearing? 

23  A    Rightfully,  I  think  I  heard  from  my  mother  because 

24  she  kept  saying  someone  was  coming  to  the  house. 

'6  5        Q     So  you  had  a  message  from  your  mother  about  -- 


183 


1  A    A  message  from  my  mother  that  some  -- 

2  Q    A  subpoena. 

3  A    She  was  saying  cops. 

4  Q    Someone  was  trying  to  serve  a  subpoena  on  you . 

5  A    Yeah.   She  was  saying  cops  and  what  did  you  do,  and 

6  I  was,  like,  "I  ain't  did  nothing." 

Q    So  you  were  aware,  at  least,  in  general  terms  at 

8  that  time  that  you  were  going  to  be  coming  to  the  ~ 

9  A     Yeah. 

10       Q    Did  you  tell  him  that  you  had  had  your  deposition 

111  taken?   Did  you  tell  Bob  Arum  that  you  had  been  down  to 

*         12  Washington  already  and  talked  to  the  Subcommittee? 

13  A     I  told  him  that  I've  been  down  and  had  spoken  to 

14  the  people  in  Washington,  and  I  didn't  think  I  had  to  go 

15  back. 

16  Q    Did  he  ask  you  what  happened  or  what  you  said? 

17  A    No,  he  did  not. 

18  Q    Did  he  ask  you  if  his  name  came  up? 

19  A    No,  he  did  not. 

20  Q    He  didn't  express  any  curiosity  at  all  about  what 

21  you  had  said  in  the  deposition? 

22  A    We  did  not  have  a  long  conversation. 

23  Q     I  understand  it  was  a  short  conversation.   But,  if 
—   24  you  told  him  "I  was  already  in  Washington,  I  had  talked  to 

milled retortwg co . M<2 5  the  Subcommittee  people,  I  gave  a  deposition,"  he  certainly 

507  C  Siren.  N.E 
Washinfion.  DC     20002 


184 


gas 


15 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

;         12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  INC2  5 
5(T  C  Street.  NE 
Wuhuifton,  DC      20002 


would  have  asked  you,  "Well,  what  happened?" 

A     If  he  asked  me,  I  don't  remember,  really,  but  we 
didn't  have  a  long  conversation  on  this.   I  said,  "I  ap- 
peared."  I  just  said  I  went  down.   It  wasn't,  like,  was  my 
name  coming  up  or  did  this  happen. 

Q     Did  he  mention  anything  else?   Did  he  mention  Mr. 
Minuto's  name  to  you  during  this  discussion? 

A    No,  he  did  not. 

Q    Was  Minuto  around  at  this  time? 

A    No,  he  wasn't  present. 

Q    Was  he  at  that  press  conference? 

A    He  was  at  the  press  conference. 

Q     So  he  was  in  the  area. 

A    He  was  in  the  area. 

Q     Did  you  have  a  discussion  with  Minuto  about  what 
Bob  Arum  had  talked  to  you  about? 

A    No,  I  did  not. 

Q     You  never  mentioned  it  to  him? 

A    No,  I  did  not . 

Q     Did  you  ever  tell  Minuto  that  you  had  been  down  at 
the  Senate  to  talk  to  them  about  boxing? 

A    Yeah.   Everybody,  you  know,  yeah. 

Q     Of  course,  you  would  have  done  that;  right? 

A    Yeah. 

Q    You  didn't  try  to  keep  it  a  secret  from  him? 


185 


i 

2 
3 

4 
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN<2  5 
50-  C  Sum.  N.E 
Wasfainfron.  D  C     20002 


L6 


A    Why  should  I? 

Q    Exactly.   So  my  question  is  when  did  you  talk  to 
him  about  it  and  what  was  the  substance,  or  what  did  you  talk 
about?   How  did  that  conversation  come  about? 

A    To  who? 

Q    Minuto. 

A    Well,  I  told  him  that  Eob  told  me  I  might  have  to 
go  to  Washington. 

Q    What  did  he  say? 

A    He  said,  "For  what?" 

I  said,  "For  the  Senate  hearings." 
He  said,  "Oh,  okay. " 

Q     He  said,  "Oh,  okay"? 

A    Yeah. 

Q    He  didn't  want  to  know  what  the  issue  was? 

A     No,  he  did  not. 

Q    He  didn't  ask  you  if  his  name  was  going  to  come  up? 

A    No ,  he  didn't. 

Q    And  he  didn't  tell  you  that  he  had  been  subpoenaed 
to  come,  too? 

A    No,  he  did  not  tell  me. 

Q    He  didn't  tell  you  that? 

A    He  didn't  tell  me  that,  no. 

Q    You  never  heard  that  from  him  at  some  point? 

A    I  never  heard  that  from  him  until,  like  the  end. 


65-875  0-93-7 


186 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-  24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  In2  5 
50"  C  Sticet,  N  E 
Taihinpon.  D  C     20002 


Oh,  the  end? 

Yes. 

When  was  the  end? 

When  I  heard  everybody  else  was  being  subpoenaed. 

How  did  you  hear  that  and  where  did  you  hear  that 


from? 


A    Well,  I  heard  it  from,  like,  the  gym  talk. 

Q     Gym  talk? 

A    Yeah.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  my  trainer  was  saying 
that  he  was  subpoenaed. 

Q    Who  is  your  trainer? 

A    Eddie  Mustafa  Muhammed.   I  said,  "Well,  if  you're 
subpoenaed  and  you  gotta  go  down,  I  guess,  Lenny  gotta  go 
down. " 

Q    What  did  he  say  about  that? 

A    He  said,  "Everybody  gotta  go  down." 

Q     Didn't  you  think  to  ask  Lenny  what  this  was  all 
about? 

A     I  spoke  to  him  about  it,  you  know,  after  I  spoke  to 
Mustafa.   He  said,  "You  know,  it's  nothing.   You  know  that 
everybody  is  being  subpoenaed  to  go  down  and  talk  about 
boxing . " 

I  said,  "Fine . " 

Q     Did  Lenny  express  any  concern  at  all?   I  mean,  was 
he  a  little  worried  about  this,  or  did  he  tell  you  what  he 


187 


yiLXEA  REPORTING  CO- 
MT  C  Streei.  N  E 
Tashinpion.  D  C      20001 


1  was  going  to  do,  or  what? 

2  A    No,  he  did  not. 

3  Q     Did  he  say  he  wasn't  going  to  talk?   Did  he  say, 

4  "I'm  taking  the  Fifth?" 

5  A    No,  he  did  not. 

6  Q    He  didn't  tell  you  that? 

7  A    No,  he  did  not. 

8  Q    He  didn't  say  anything  at  all  about  what  he  was 

9  going  to  talk  about? 

10       A    No .   He  just  said  that  he  was  going  down. 
1  1        Q    You  know  he  did  take  the  Fifth  Amendment? 

12  A    Did  he? 

13  Q     Do  you  know  that? 

14  A     I  didn't  know  that. 

15  Q    You  didn't  know  that? 

16  A    No. 

17  Q    You  have  never  talked  to  him  since  he  came  down 

18  here? 

19  A     No ,  I  never  spoke  to  him. 

20  Q    Well,  you  must  have  spoken  to  him.   You  paid  out 

21  some  money  from  this  -- 

22  A    Well,  after  I  paid  that  money  out,  I  mean,  what  he 

23  do  with  his  money  is  his  business.   I  mean,  I  just  pay  what  I 

24  pay.   Do  you  know  what  I  am  saying?   Just  like  I  paid 

»€5  Mustafa,  what  he  do  with  his  money  is  his  business.   I  never 


188 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

yiLLER  REPORTING  CO..  in£  5 
so"  C  Sirect.  N  E 
\5Ta5hinpon ,  D  C      20002 


spoke  to  him  about  it  neither.   I  never  asked  him  what  did 
they  say  or,  to  anybody  else,  what  did  they  say.   We  all  went 
about  our  business . 

Q    Did  Mr.  Minuto  ever  suggest  to  you  that,  maybe,  you 
should  take  the  Fifth  Amendment  if  you  came  down  or  not  talk 
about  him? 

A     No. 

Q     Did  he  ever  suggest  to  you,  maybe,  "You  don't  have 
to  go.   They  already  took  your  deposition"? 

A    No,  he  did  not . 

Q    He  never  said  anything  like  that? 

A     No. 

BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q    Along  the  same  line  of  questioning.   At  your  last 
deposition,  you  mentioned  a  friendship  with  a  John  Joseph 
Conti  of  Las  Vegas;  is  that  true? 

A    Yeah,  I  remember. 

Q    Were  you  in  contact  with  Mr.  Conti  in  connection 
with  the  February  13th  fight  in  Las  Vegas? 

A    No. 

Q     Did  you  ever  speak  to  him  while  you  were  out  there? 

A     I  seen  John,  like,  one  time,  maybe. 

Q    Did  Mr.  Conti  ever  discuss  your  appearing  before 
the  Subcommittee  or  your  appearance  for  a  deposition? 

A    No ,  he  did  not. 


189 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

li 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  In£  5 
}07  C  Sueci.  NE 
Washinpon.  D  C      20002 


20 


Q  Was  he  aware  of  your  appearing  before  the  Subcom- 
mittee? 

A  I  don't  think  so.  I  don't  think  he  was.  I  don't 
feel  that  he  knew.  You  know,  he  didn't  mention  anything  to 
me . 

Q    What  was  the  nature  of  your  meeting  with  Mr.  Conti 
when  you  were  in  Las  Vegas? 

A  It  wasn't  a  meeting.  It  was  just  that,  you  know, 
we  just  talked. 

Q    Where  did  you  talk? 

A    We  always  talk.   Somewhere  where  we  eat,  you  know, 
where  I  eat.   I  got  a  restaurant  out  there  that  I  like  to  eat 
in.   He  eats  in  that  same  restaurant. 

Q    What  restaurant  is  that? 

A     It's  closed  now.   Marbella's. 

Q    Did  you  both  have  a  meal  together  at  Marbella's? 

A  No,  we  did  not.  I  mean,  we  just  seen  each  other 
there,  and  that  was  that. 

Q    Mr.  Barkley,  in  connection  with  your  appearance 
here  today,  we  asked  your  attorney  if  he  couldn't  contact  you 
and  ask  you  to  bring  along  financial  records  regarding  the 
February  13,  1993,  fight  that  you  had  against  James  Toney  in 
Las  Vegas.   Have  you  brought  any  of  these  records  along  with 
you  today? 

A    No.   Those  are  the  records  that  I  have  right  there. 


190 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN$>  5 
50"  C  Su«l.  N  E 
Wajhinpion,  DC      20002 


MR.  TUOHEY:   His  question  was  did  you  bring  those 
today  to  this  hearing. 

THE  WITNESS:   Oh,  yeah. 

MR.  LORD:   We  have  two  pages  of  documents  that  I 
would  like  to  mark  as  Exhibit  No.  2  for  the  record. 

[Exhibit  No.  2  was  marked  for 
identification. ] 
BY  MR.  LORD: 
Q    Mr.  Barkley,  I  am  going  to  hand  you  what  has  been 
marked  Exhibit  No.  2  and,  if  you  could,  to  the  best  of  your 
ability,  identify  what  those  two  pages  of  documents  represent. 

A    These  are  advances  that  Arum  gave  me,  the  payment 
check,  the  net  check  that  he  gave  me. 

Q    These  appear  to  be  check  receipts;  is  that  true? 
A    Yes. 

Q     I  am  going  to  ask  you  a  few  questions  regarding 
these  check  receipts.   It  appears  from  the  top  that  --  well, 
let  me  ask  this,  first,  just  to  set  this  up:   Is  it  true 
that,  on  February  13,  1993,  you  fought  James  Toney  in  Las 
Vegas,  Nevada? 
A    Yes. 

Q     Is  it  also  true  that  these  documents,  which  are 
marked  as  Exhibit  No.  2,  are  concerning  the  payments  that 
were  made  to  you  from  that  fight? 
A    Yes. 


191 


TOP  RANK  INC 


BARKLEY,     IRAN 


check  no  oos::3 


2/13/93 


PURSE  2/13/93   CAESARS  PAI.ACE,  LV 


DEDUCTIONS: 


NET  AMOUNT 


LICENSE  FEE 

APPROVED  ADVANCES 

CK  TO  GOODMAN  &  CHESNOFF 

RESERVE  W/H  INCIDENTALS 

IBF  SANCTION  FEE 

ANTI-DOPING 


51  ,000, 000. QO 


15.00 
45,000.00 
30,000.00 
50,000.00  1 
25,000.001 
25,000.00  I 


S  824,985 


PAVEE  OETATCH  THIS  STATEMENT  BEFORE  DEPOSITING 


TOP  RANK  INC 


0  0 -026357    BARKLEY,     IRAN 
DESCRIPTION 


CHECK  NO  0008637 

DEDUCTIONS      I        NET  AMCUt 


,  THIS  STATEMENT  BEFORE  DEPOSITING 


TOP  RANK  INC. 

INVOICE  NO 

01/27/9^   0127 


00-"?"^  RARKLEY,  IRAN 

DESCRIPTION 


rMEi-.KNO  0008586 

DEDUCTIONS      |        NET  AMOU' 


PURSE  ADVANCE 
2/13/93 
LAS  VEGAS, NV 
403-158 


192 


TOP  RANK  INC. 

00-026357     BARKLEY, 

IRAN 

Check  nC           0006653 

DATE                        INVOICE  NO 

DESCRIPTION 

1 

AMOUNT                  DEDUCTIONS              'iE" 

,.o... 

02/04/98   0204         PURSE  ADVANCE 
2/13/93 
403-158 
]04/9£   0204/A      LESS  MANAGER 
FEE/AHMED  BEY 
2/13/93 
406-158 


10000.001        . 00i    1000C 

■ 

iooo. oor  .oo;        iooo 


PAYEE   DETATCH  THIS  STATEMENT  BEFORE  DEPOSITING 


TOP  RANK  INC. 


00-026357  BARKLEY,  IRAN 


01/27/93   0127/A 


DESCRIPTION 


PURSE  ADVANCE 

2/13/93 

LAS  VEGAS, NV 


5Q0 


SE  DETATCH  THIS  STATEMENT  BEFORE  DEPOSITING 


00-026357    BARKLEY,     IRAN 

CHECK  NO          0008658 

DATE 

INVOICE  NO 

DESCRIPTION 

AMOUNT 

DEDUCTIONS      ,        NET  AMC 

02/09/9: 

0209 

PURSE    ADVANCE 
2/13/93 
403-158                                                     10000.00 

10000.00 

.( 

.00           1000 
0                              10000 

193 


i 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPOBT1MO  CO..  INg  5 
S07  C  Stiecc.  N.E 
«ajhingrcm    D  C      20002 


Q    On  the  top  of  the  first  -- 

MR.  TUOHEY:   Leighton,  let  me  just  correct.   These 
records  reflect  payments  in  connection  with  the  fight.   Some 
of  them  are  pre-fight  advances  and  then  there  is  a  post-fight 
check. 

MR.  LORD:   Okay.   Let  me  clarify. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q     Is  it  correct  that  these  check  receipts  identify 
payments  made  in  connection  with  your  February  13,  199  3, 
fight  against  James  Toney? 

A    Yes. 

Q    On  the  top  check  receipt,  it  says  that  the  purse, 
2/13/93,  Caesars  Place,  Las  Vegas,  $1  million.   Is  it  correct 
that  your  purse  for  that  fight  was  $1  million? 

A    Yes. 

Q    Then  the  next  line  represents  deductions.   The 
first  deduction  is  license  fee,  $15.   Is  it  correct  that  that 
is  your  license  fee  with  the  State  of  Nevada,  as  a  profes- 
sional boxer? 

A    Yes. 

Q    The  next  deduction  is  marked  as  approved  advances, 
$45,000.   Could  you  tell  us  what  those  approved  advances  are? 

A    Those  advances  that  Bob  Arum  wrote  out  to  me,  like, 
$5,000  checks  for,  like,  to  pay  my  sparring  partners  and 
advance  me  money  to  live  out  there,  and  stuff  like  that,  from 


194 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

II 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-  24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  in£  5 
507  C  Street.  N.E 
Wuhington.  DC      2000! 


my  purse. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   I  think  you  will  find  that  the 
underlying  receipts,  Dan,  add  up  to  about  $35,000,  and  this 
is  all  Arum  had. 

BY  MR.  RINZEL: 

Q    This  may  not  be  a  complete  set  of  all  the  documents 
that  you  got  from  Top  Rank,  in  connection  with  this  fight. 

A     No. 

Q     Is  that  what  you  are  saying? 

A    Yeah. 

Q     I  noted,  as  Mr.  Tuohey  has  pointed  out,  that  the 
total  advances  listed  here  as  purse  advances  total  only 
$35,000;  is  that  correct?   Is  that  your  understanding? 

A    Yeah. 

Q    From  where  did  you  get  these  records? 

A    Well,  I  got  these  records  --  these  are  records  that 
I  had  brung  back  with  me  from  Vegas  that  I  had  in  my  bag,  but 
the  sheet  that  I  was  originally  looking  for,  it  was  lost.   I 
had  then  called  Top  Rank  to  Federal  Express  me  the  rest  of 
it,  so  I  know,  you  know,  where  I  was  standing.   But,  I  guess, 
it  never  got  to  me . 

Q     You  haven't  received  -- 

A     I  haven't  received  it. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   When  it  comes  in,  Dan,  or  if  it 
doesn't,  I  will  call  Top  Rank  to  make  sure  we  have  a  complete 


195 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

li 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-  24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  In2  5 
507  C  Su«(.  N  E 
WishuiEion,  DC      20002 


set,  and  I  will  submit  them. 

MR.  RINZEL:   We  would  appreciate  that. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q    These  approved  advances,  Mr.  Barkley  --  let  me  just 
ask  you  very  briefly  --  what  were  these  advances  for? 

A    To  pay  my  sparring  partners,  my  living. 

Q    Whom  do  you  go  to  get  the  advance? 

A    Top  Rank. 

Q    Who  in  Top  Rank  gives  you  the  advance? 

A    The  accountant. 

Q    Who  is  the  accountant? 

A    Ben. 

Q    What  is  his  name? 

A    Ben.   I  don't  know  his  last  name.   I  just  know  him 
as  Ben. 

Q    Let  me  ask  you  about  one  specific  purse  advance. 
On  2/4/93,  on  the  second  page,  there  is  a  purse  advance  for 
$10,000.   Then,  underneath,  there  seems  to  be  a  $1,000 
notation:   "Less  manager  fee/Ahmed  Bey."   Could  you  explain 
that  purse  advance  for  us. 

A    Less  manager  fee.   That  was  paid  to  Ahmed  Bey. 

Q    How  much  was  paid  to  Ahmed  Bey? 

A     I  believe  $10,000. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   Take  a  look. 

THE  WITNESS:   $1,000.   Yeah,  $1,000. 


196 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-  24 

MILL£fi  REPORTING  CO,,  INg  5 
507  CSirett,  N.E 
Washington.  D  C      2000; 


BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q    Why  was  Ahmed  Bey  given  an  advance  at  that  time? 

A  It  wasn't  like  an  advance.  It  was  like  the  balance 
of  $1,000  that  I  owed  him  from  the  money  that  he  was  supposed 
to  receive. 

Q    Why  did  you  owe  him  -- 

A    Because  he  was  supposed  to  get  a  cut,  you  know. 

Q    Let  me  back  up.   Who  is  Ahmed  Bey? 

A    Who  is  Ahmed  Bey? 

Q    Yes. 

A    Who  is  Ahmed  Bey?   Ahmed  Bey  is  Ahmed  Bey. 

Q    Would  you  identify  your  relationship  to  Ahmed  Bey? 

A     I  know  him.   He's  a  friend   You  know,  he's  a 
friend . 

Q    What  role  does  Ahmed  Bey  play  i^n  your  boxing 
career? 

A    He  had  played  no  role  in  my  boxing  career  now,  you 
know,  and  he  had  played  no  role  from  the  beginning.   At  the 
time  when  I  came  back  to  boxing,  Ahmed  was  friends  with  Top 
Rank.   At  the  time,  Ahmed  was  also  a  friend  of  mine,  from  my 
old  manager  John  Reeze.   What  happened  was,  you  know,  I 
didn't  have  nowhere  else  to,  like,  go  to  anyways  of  knowing 
that,  if  Arum  would  speak  to  me  or  he  would  talk  with 
somebody  else.   See,  Arum  is  a  funny  guy.   He  don't  talk  with 
fighters.   So  I  didn't  have  no  other  way  in. 


197 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILl£fi  REPORTING  CO.,  INfi  5 
)0"  C  Sum.  N  E 
WaifiiDfton    D  C      20002 


26 


Q     So  Ahmed  Bey  was  your  go-between  with  Top  Rank? 

A    Go-between  Top  Rank;  yeah. 

Q    On  this  check  receipt,  it  says:   less  manager  fee. 
What  does  that  mean? 

A    See,  Ahmed  at  the  time  and,  I  think,  the  commis- 
sioner who  passed  away  --  God  bless  the  dead  --  Chuck  Minker, 
at  the  time,  me  and  Ahmed  was  going  through  this  thing.   Like 
I  said,  I  was  out  of  the  thing.   Ahmed  was  saying  that,  you 
know,  to  help  me,  Arum  wouldn't  talk  to  me  and,  at  the  time, 
I  didn't  know  this,  so  he  said  Arum  would  not  speak  to  the 
fighter  and  that  they  don't  want  to  have  anything  to  do  with 
me,  so  he  was  my  go-between,  to  get  to  Top  Rank. 

Then,  when  I  found  out  that  all  I  had  to  do  was 
just  come  and  talk  to  Arum  myself,  he  kind  of  like  manipu- 
lated me.   Like  I  say,  he  manipulated  me  by  using  his 
strength,  by  saying,  hey,  Arum  is  not  going  to  talk  to  you, 
so  if  you  let  me  be  the  go-between,  you  know,  I  want  to  be 
your  manager . 

I  told  him,  "No,  I  don't  want  you  as  a  manager,  and 
I  don't  need  you  as  a  manager." 

Q     So  Ahmed  Bey  manipulated  you  to  make  you  think  that 
he  was  more  important  than  he  actually  was? 

A    That's  right. 

Q    But  you  had  to  pay  him  for  his  services;  is  that 
correct? 


198 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO.,  !N<2  5 
507  CStreci.  N.E 
Washington    D  C     2000: 


A    Oh,  yeah.   Then  when  the  services  caught  on  to  me, 
after  I  was  in  already  and  I  found  out  little  things,  I  just 
talked  to  Arum  myself,  and  then  I  was  highly  upset  with 
Ahmed,  and  I  told  him  at  the  time  --  I  went  back  to  Chuck 
Minker  when  he  was  still  alive.   I  told  Chuck  Minker,  I  said, 
"I  don't  want  him  as  my  manager,  and  I  don't  want  him  going 
around  telling  people  he  is  my  manager  because  he  is  not." 

Chuck  Minker  said  to  me,  "Iran,  you  signed  a 
contract  with  him." 

I  said,  "Yeah,  but  that  was  the  deal  that  you  told 
me.   You  told  me  any  time  that  I  wanted  to  get  rid  of  him  I 
could  get  rid  of  him." 

It  didn't  work  out  that  way. 

Q     So  at  one  time  Ahmed  Bey  was  your  manager  of 
record? 

A    Yeah,  one  time  of  record. 

Q    And  the  manager's  license  was  filed  with  the  Nevada 
commission? 

A    Boxing  Commission,  yes. 

Q     Through  Chuck  Minker? 

A    Through  Chuck  Minker. 

Q    And  you  said  that  Chuck  Minker  had  some  role  in 
this  contract.   What  role  did  he  play  in  Ahmed  Bey  becoming 
your  manager? 

A    Well,  Chuck  Minker  was,  like,  he  was  the  one  that 


gas 


199 


1  said  —  like  I  told  you  before,  I  said  I  didn't  want  no 

2  manager,  I  said,  because  this  man  is  not  giving  me  anything 

3  up  front,  as  a  bonus  to  be  my  manager,  and  I  don't  think  I 

4  should  just  let  him  come  along  and  let  him  get  a  free  ride. 

5  Q    What  was  Chuck  Minker's  role? 

6  A    Chuck  Minker's  role  was  that  he  said,  "Okay,  Iran, 

7  any  time  you  sign  this  contract  and  any  time  you  come  to  me 

8  and  say  you  don't  want  Ahmed  no  more,  I  will  tear  this 

9  contract  up  and  end  of  contract . 

10  "Ahmed,  do  you  understand  that?" 

11  "Yes." 

12  "Iran,  you  understand  that? 

13  "Yes.  " 

14  But  the  man  did  not  stick  to  his  word.   After  he 

15  passed  on  and  everything,  I  told  Ahmed  myself,  "You  are  not 

16  my  manager,  and  I  don't  care  what  the  Boxing  Commission  has 

17  said .  " 

18  Q     Did  Chuck  Minker  give  you  any  advice  about  signing 

19  the  contract?   Did  he  tell  you  you  should  sign  the  contract 

20  at  that  time? 

21  A    At  the  time,  he  was,  like,  "if  you  don't  want  a 

22  manager,  you  don't  have  to  have  a  manager,  but  my  advice  to 

23  you  is  that  you  have  to  have  a  manager  in  Nevada."   You  know, 
—   24  that's  how  everything  happened. 

miller  reporting  co .  inS  5       Q    And  you  respected  his  advice  because  he  was 

507  C  Strert.  N  E 
Wajhinpon.  D  C      20002 


200 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

li 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-  24 

MIU£fi  REPORTING  CO..  IN&  5 
iOT  C  Sum.  NE 
Waihingron.  D  C      20002 


29 


speaking  for  the  Nevada  commission? 

A    Right. 

Q  This  $1,000  payment  that  was  made  to  Ahmed  Bey  on 
2/4/93,  was  that  management  fees  that  you  owed  him  from  the 
past? 

A    Yeah,  something  that  he  did. 

Q    This  $1,000  payment  made  to  Ahmed  Bey  that  was 
characterized  as  an  advance  from  your  Toney  purse,  was  that 
the  only  payment  made  to  Ahmed  Bey  from  your  Toney  purse? 

A    No. 

Q    What  other  payments  were  there? 

A     $30,000. 

Q     For  the  record,  is  that  the  third  deduction,  which 
is  listed  as  check  to  Goodman  &  Chesnoff,  on  Exhibit  No.  2? 

A    Yes. 

Q     So  what  was  the  total  amount  of  money  that  was  paid 
to  Ahmed  Bey  out  of  your  Toney  purse? 

A     $30,000. 

Q     Plus  the  $1,000  on  the  second  page,  which  is 
$31,000. 

A    Yes. 

Q     Do  you  know  why  the  check  was  made  to  Goodman  6. 
Chesnoff? 

A     Because  at  the  time  Ahmed's  attorney  explained  that 
is  the  way  he  wanted  the  check  made  out  to.   That's  what  he 


201 


10 


MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  I 
W  C  Street.  N  E 
*ishinfrroo    D  C      2000: 


1  said. 

2  Q    Who  was  his  attorney? 

3  A     Mark  Wyman. 

4  Q    Did  Mr.  Wyman  explain  to  you  that  the  check  should 

5  be  made  from  you,  but  it  was  made  from  Top  Rank  to  the  law 

6  firm,  rather  than  to  Ahmed  Bey? 

7  A     Right. 

8  Q    But  it  was  your  understanding  that  this  was  money 

9  that  you  had  owed  Ahmed  Bey? 

10  A    Yeah. 

11  BY  MR.  RINZEL: 

12  Q     Is  Mr.  Wyman  a  member  of  Goodman  &  Chesnoff  law 

13  firm,  do  you  know? 

14  A    Not  that  I  know  of.   I  don't  think  he  is. 

15  Q    He  was  the  attorney  for  Ahmed  Bey? 

16  A    Right. 

17  Q     Did  he  explain  to  you  why  the  check  should  be  made 

18  to  another  law  firm? 

19  A    Because  at  the  time  I  had  hired  Goodman  out  there 

20  in  Vegas.   I  had  hired  them,  and  they  was  doing  work  for  me. 

21  Q    What  kind  of  work  were  they  doing  for  you? 

22  A    Negotiation  work.   You  know,  what  lawyers  do. 

23  Q    Lawyers  do  lots  of  different  things.   They  were 

24  negotiating  for  what? 

iS5  A    This  deal  here.   They  was  negotiating  this  deal 


65-875  O  -  93  - 


202 


MILLEP  REPORTING  CO.. 
50?  C  Street.  N  E 
Washington.  DC      20001 


l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

n25 


here . 

Q    You  are  talking  about  the  Toney  fight  now? 

A    No,  not  the  Toney  fight.   The  check  with  Chesnoff 
and  Ahmed  because  I  told  --  I  mean,  the  check  with  Ahmed  and 
me.   I  told  Ahmed,  I  said,  "I  am  not  going  to  pay  you  10 
percent."   I  said,  "Either  you  take  3  percent  or  you  get 


So  then  you  were  in  a  dispute  with  Ahmed  over  how 


nothing . 

Q 
much  -- 

A    That's  right. 

Q     --  you  should  pay  him  from  this  fight? 

A    Not  only  from  this  fight,  but  from  previous  fights. 
You  know,  I  said,  "I  don't  think  you  should  be  getting  paid 
all  this  money  because  of  the  simple  fact  you  ain't  did 
nothing. " 

Q    As  far  as  you  were  concerned,  he  was  not  your 
manager? 

A    No ,  he  didn't  do  nothing.   I  did  it. 

Q     You  did  have  a  prior  contract  --  management 
contract  --  with  him? 

A    Yes,  I  did. 

Q    Was  that  contract  voided  in  some  way,  canceled? 

A     In  my  mind,  it  was. 

Q    Well,  I  understand  in  your  mind.   But  did  you  go  to 
the  Nevada  Commission  and  tell  them? 


203 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO-,  INfi  5 
10V  C  Sum    NE 
ttajKinfion.  DC      200O2 


A    Yes,  I  did.   I  went  to  the  commission  and  I  told 
them,  and  they  were  saying  that  you  have  to  go  through  the 
hearing,  and  you  have  to  go  through  this  and  everything.   So 
what  I  did  was  I  hired  Chesnoff  to  work  this  deal  out  for  me. 
He  worked  it  out  for  me  between  Ahmed  Bey's  lawyer  and  him, 
and  that  was  that . 

Q    How  did  you  decide  on  this  particular  law  firm? 

A     How? 

Q     Yes. 

A    Well,  I  heard  about  them. 

Q    Mr.  Chesnoff  is  also  Mr.  Conti's  attorney? 

A    Oh,  he  is,  huh? 

Q    Yes. 

A    Well,  I  didn't  know  nothing  about  that. 

Q    Well,  I  am  wondering  how  you  did  hear  about  him, 
then? 

A    Well,  I  heard  about  him. 

Q     How? 

A    Not  from  Conti. 

Q     From  whom? 

A    Various  people.   They're  the  biggest  lawyer  firm  in 
Vegas  right  now. 

Q    Yes,  I  think  they  are  well-known. 

A    Some  fighters  that  I  know  told  me  about  Chesnoff 
and  Goodman. 


204 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN(£  5 
107  CStrcti.  N  E 
Washington,  DC      20002 


Q    Goodman  is  primarily  a  criminal  defense  lawyer, 
isn't  he? 

A    Oh,  really? 

Q     I  am  asking  you. 

A     I  don't  know  that. 

Q    You  didn't  know  that? 

A     I  didn't  know  that. 

Q    You  don't  know  that  he  represents  a  lot  of  mob  guys 
out  there? 

A    No,  I  did  not. 

Q    You  never  heard  that  before? 

A    No,  I  did  not.   I  mean,  well,  if  he  did,  I  didn't 
know  that . 

Q    Alleged  mob  guys;  okay? 

A    Oh,  okay. 

Q    Did  you  ever  hear  that? 

A    No.   But  I  know  that  they  was  big  criminal  lawyers. 
Also,  he's  into  the  boxing  game.   He  knows  about  boxing.   He 
knew  Bob  Arum,  and  Bob  Arum  often,  as  a  matter  fact,  recom- 
mended that  he  was  a  highly  respected  lawyer. 

Q     So  you  talked  to  Bob  Arum  about  him,  and  he  told 
you  about  him? 

A    Right. 

Q    That's  all  I  asked.   I  want  to  know  where  you  got 
the  recommendation  from. 


205 


MILLER  REPORTING  CO  , 
lOT  C  Street.  N.E 
Washington    D  C      2000 


34 


A    Okay. 

BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q    What  did  Ahmed  Bey  do  in  connection  with  the  Toney- 
Tiberi  fight  for  you? 

A    Toney? 

Q     I'm  sorry.   Regarding  the  Toney-Barkley  fight, 
February  13th  — 

A    Nothing. 

Q     --  what  did  Ahmed  Bey  do  for  you? 

A    Nothing. 

Q    Did  he  in  any  way  train  you? 

A     No. 

Q    Give  you  any  advice  about  your  management? 

A     I  wouldn't  let  him  come  around  me. 

Q    The  next  line  on  the  deductions,  on  Exhibit  No.  2, 
it  says:   reserve  w/h  --  I  suppose  that's  withhold  -- 
incidentals.   That's  $50,000.   Could  you  explain  that  line? 

A     I  believe  that  line  is  for,  like,  when  Arum  puts  up 
the  hotel  rooms  and  stuff  for  when  my  family  or  someone  else 
--  friends  or  something  --  that's  to  protect  the  hotel  so,  if 
anything  is,  like,  stolen,  missing,  whatever,  I  guess.   I 
don't  know.   I  never  knew  what  that  was,  you  know. 
BY  MR.  RINZEL: 

Q    Arum  withholds  from  your  purse  $50,000,  and  you  are 
telling  me  you  don't  know  what  it  is  about?   They  are  some 


65-875  0-93-9 


206 


1  kind  of  incidentals? 

2  A     I  don't  know  what  them  incidentals  are.   Do  you 

3  know  what  I'm  saying?   I  never  really,  like,  figured  it  out. 

4  When  you  said  incidentals,  I  was,  like,  more  or  like  saying, 

5  hey,  maybe  that's  money  that  they  just  took  out  for  the 

6  hotel.   That's  the  only  thing  I  could  gather.   I  don't  know 

7  what  that  is  for,  to  tell  you  the  truth. 

8  Q     Does  it  interest  you  at  all? 

9  A     It  interest  me. 

10  Q    Are  you  at  all  concerned  about  the  $50,000  that  you 

11  didn't  get? 

•         12       A     Oh,  yes,  definitely.   I  am  very  interested  in  that 

13  now.   I  am  wondering  myself,  you  know,  where  it  came  from. 

14  Q     Did  you  raise  any  questions  at  the  time  the  check 

15  was  given  to  you?   Was  this  handed  to  you  along  with  the 

16  check  at  the  time  after  the  fight? 

17  A     I  believe  so,  but  I  didn't  look  at  this. 

18  Q     You  didn't  have  time  to  -- 

19  A     No,  I  didn't  have  this  check  in  my  presence  because 

20  at  the  time  I  was  laid  up  with  lumps  and  bumps  all  over  my 

21  head. 

22  Q     You  have  to  sign  for  the  check,  don't  you? 

23  A    Yeah,  I  sign  for  it.   I  sign  for  it,  like,  after 

24  the  fight,  and  then  the  check  was  given  to,  I  believe,  my 
miu£b  reporting  co..  wig  5  nephew. 

507  C  Sircci.  N  E 
Vfcajhinpion    D  C      20002 


207 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO-.  IN§  5 
i07  C  Sikh.  N.E 
Washington.  DC      20002 


Q    Your  nephew?  who  is  your  nephew? 

A    My  nephew? 

Q     Yes. 

A    Tyrone . 

Q    Barkley? 

A    Lourdes . 

Q    And  he  was  out  there  at  the  fight  with  you? 

A    He's  always  out  there  at  the  fights  with  me. 

Q    And  the  commission  representative  gave  the  check  to 
him? 

A    With  my  authority.   I  told  them  to  give  him  the 
check.   He  didn't  just  go  give  it  to  him. 

Q     Have  you  raised  any  questions  about  this  $50,000 
with  Mr.  Arum? 

A    No.   But  I  sure  will,  though.   I  don't  even  know 
what  it  is  . 

BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q     Could  the  $50,000  incidentals  include  tickets? 

A    There's  a  possibility  'cause  I  did  have,  like,  a 
lot  of  tickets . 

Q     How  much  are  a  lot  of  tickets? 

A     I  don't  know.   I  bought  a  lot  of  tickets  to  the 
fight. 

Q     Do  you  typically  have  to  pay  for  the  tickets  you 
buy  from  the  promoter? 


208 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

,17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN<2  5 
507  C  Street.  NE 

Washington.  DC      20002 


A     Yes,  I  do. 

Q    Approximately  how  much,  in  the  amount  of  money,  in 
tickets  did  you  buy  with  regard  to  the  Toney  fight?  --  a 
ball-park  figure. 

A     I  have  so  many  friends  in  Vegas .   I  might  have 
spent  about  $100,000. 

BY  MR.  RINZEL: 

Q     How  many  people  did  you  get  tickets  for? 

A    A  lot  of  people.   I  don't  even  know  half  of  the 
people  I  was  buying  tickets  for. 

Q     Did  you  get  tickets  for  10  people,  100  people,  500 
people;  how  many  people? 

A    Maybe  5-,  6-,  700  people. 

Q     5-  or  6-  or  700  people  you  paid  tickets  for? 

A     Paid  for  tickets.   That's  me.   I  gotta  a  generous 
heart . 

BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q     Did  you  buy  any  expensive  tickets? 

A    Yeah,  $250  tickets,  $300  tickets.   It  was  going  up 
there,  you  know  what  I  am  saying. 

Q     How  about  parties;  did  you  hold  any  parties  before 
or  after  your  fight? 

A    No .   I  was  too  sore  to  have  any  parties? 

Q    Well,  what  about  before? 

A     I  didn't  party  before  the  fight.   I  don't  party 


209 


18 


1 

2 
3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-  24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN§  5 
507  C  Sueel    N  E 
Wahinpon.  D  C      20002 


before  fights. 

Q    Did  you  hold  any  type  of  a  dinner  or  any  type  of 
event  for  your  family  after  the  fight  --  any  type  of  event? 

A    I  might've.   My  nephew  might've  took  them  out  or 
something.   I  don't  know. 

Q    Would  that  have  been  charged  as  an  incidental? 
MR.  RINZEL:   Off  the  record. 
[Discussion  off  the  record.] 
[Mr.  Rinzel  left  the  hearing  room.] 
MR.  LORD:   Back  on  the  record. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q     Regarding  the  incidentals,  again,  if  you  were  to 
throw  a  party  or  to  have  any  type  of  a  dinner  for  your 
relatives,  would  that  have  been  charged  to  you  by  your 
promotor? 

A    Yes,  it  would've. 

Q    In  the  past  when  you  fought  for  Top  Rank  and  Bob 
Arum,  has  he  held  back  money  from  your  purse  as  incidentals? 

A    Yes.   As  far  as  I  know,  yes. 

Q    Do  you  ever  have  money  left  over  from  what  is  held 
back  as  incidentals? 

A    Yes. 

Q    Yes ,  you  do? 

A    Yeah.   It  all  depends,  if  you  give  the  party  or 
whatever. 


210 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO.,  IN§  5 
50"  C  Sireci.  N  E 
Wainin£ron.  D  C      20002 


39 


Q    What  do  you  do  with  any  money  that  might  be  left 
over  from  what  he  has  held  back?   Does  he  send  you  a  check? 
Do  you  go  collect  the  money? 

A    He  sends  me  a  check.   If  there  was  anything  held 
back  or  anything  like  that,  he  sends  a  check. 

Q     The  next  line  of  deductions  is  marked  IBF  sanction 
fee,  $25,000.   Can  you  tell  us  what  that  is? 

A     I  believe  that's  for  them  to  put  on  the  fight. 
That's  their  sanctioning  fee. 

Q    And  IBF  is  the  International  Boxing  Federation? 

A    Yes. 

Q    And  you  held  the  super  middleweight  title  of  that 
sanctioning  body? 

A    Yes . 

Q    And  you  had  to  pay  that  sanctioning  body  $25,000  in 
connection  with  the  fight? 

A     Yes  . 

Q     The  last  line  on  the  deductions  is  labeled  anti- 
doping,  and  it  is  for  $25,000.   Can  you  explain  for  us  what 
anti-doping  is? 

A    That's  your  urine  test  and  your  drug  test  and  all 
of  that. 

Q    And  that  costs  $25,000? 

A    Yes,  it  costs  you  $25,000. 

Q    Who  is  that  check  made  out  to?   Who  is  that  payment 


211 


i 

2 
3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  inc2  5 
>07  CStretl,  NE 
Washington .  D  C      2000! 


40 


made  to? 

A     I  believe  to  the  anti-doping  people. 

Q    Would  that  be  the  State  of  Nevada? 

A    Nevada . 

Q    Were  you  given  a  drug  test  prior  to  this  fight? 

A     Yes ,  I  was . 

Q    After  the  fight? 

A    Yep. 

Q    Did  you  pass  these  tests? 

A    Yep. 

Q     Did  you  receive  any  training  expenses,  any  training 
fees  in  connection  with  the  Toney  fight  on  February  13? 

A    Yeah.   Arum  gave  me  $50,000  for  training  expenses 
but,  as  you  could  see  -- 

Q  Let  me  ask  you  this  first:  Is  the  $50,000  part  of 
the  $1  million  purse,  or  is  it  in  addition  to  the  $1  million 
purse? 

A     It's  in  addition  to  the  $1  million  purse,  I 
believe . 

MR.  TUOHEY:   That's  my  understanding. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q    So  we  don't  have  a  receipt  for  the  $50,000  training 
expense  at  this  time? 

A    No,  we  don't. 

Q    Just  the  purse? 


212 


1  A     Just  the  purse. 

2  Q     Top  Rank  paid  you  $50,000  in  training  expenses? 

3  A    Yes . 

4  Q     Did  you,  in  fact,  receive  $50,000  in  training 

5  expenses? 

6  A    Yes,  I  did.   But,  after  I  received  my  trainer  -- 

7  Q    Who  is  your  trainer? 

8  A    Eddie  Mustafa  Muhammed .   He  has  not  received  his 

9  pay  from  the  last  prior  fight,  before  this  fight.   So  I  had 

10  to  take  out  of  the  expense  money  his  pay,  and  pay  him  for 

11  that  fight,  from  the  last  fight,  which  left  me,  like, 
,         12  $10,000. 

13  Q    Let  me  get  this  straight.   You  had  to  pay  Eddie 

14  Mustafa  Muhammed  money,  and  you  paid  him  that  money  out  of 

15  your  training  expenses;  is  that  correct?1 

16  A    Correct. 

17  Q    And  that  was  $40,000? 

18  A    Right. 

19  MR.  TUOHEY:   Could  I  interrupt  on  that,  Leighton? 

20  MR.  LORD:   Sure. 

21  MR.  TUOHEY:   Maybe  I  can  clarify  the  record  on 

22  that. 

2  3  MR.  LORD:   Sure. 

24  MR.  TUOHEY:   It  is  my  understanding  that  $15,000  of 

mih£r reporting co. in(2 5  the  $40,000  was  used  to  pay  Mustafa  for  a  previous  fight. 

507  C  Streci,  N  E 
Waihingion    D  C      20002 


213 


42 


10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO.,  INC?  5 
W  C  Sum.  N  E 
U""ashuigion.  D  C      20002 


$25,000  of  the  S40,000  that  went  to  Mustafa  out  of  the 
$50,000  training  advance  was  an  advance  to  Mustafa,  so  that, 
when  all  was  said  and  done  at  the  end,  after  the  fight,  Mr. 
Barkley  paid  Mustafa  $75,000  against  a  $100,000  agreement  -- 
10  percent  --  $75,000  --  because  $25,000  had  been  given  as  a 
prefight  advance. 

Is  the  record  clear? 
MR.  LORD:   Yes,  it  is. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   You  can  ask  anything  you  want, 
Leighton,  but  I  just  wanted  to  set  the  framework  on  that. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q    Mr.  Barkley,  since  your  attorney  is  not  under  oath, 
do  you  agree  with  the  statements  that  he  has  made? 

A    Yes . 

Q    We  spoke  to  Mr.  Arum  at  some  point  in  connection 
with  the  fight.   Mr.  Arum  told  us  that  Mr.  Eddie  Mustafa 
Muhammed  needed  money  for  a  downpayment  on  a  house.   Are  you 
aware  of  this? 

A    Yes. 

Q    And  that  some  of  the  money  that  was  going  to  go  to 
you  as  training  expenses,  in  fact,  went  to  Eddie  Mustafa 
Muhammed  to  make  that  downpayment  on  his  house;  is  that 
correct? 

A    Yes. 

Q    Mr.  Arum  said  that,  in  total,  Eddie  Mustafa 


214 


i 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  INC?  5 
107  C  Street,  N  E 
Washington.  D  C      20002 


43 


Muhammed  received  $4  0,000  out  of  your  training  expenses;  is 
that  correct? 

A    Yes. 

Q    And  that  you  then  received  $10,000? 

A    Yes. 

Q     Did  Mr.  Arum  write  you  a  check  for  $10,000? 

A    Yes,  he  did. 

Q    What  did  you  do  with  that  check? 

A     I  stuck  it  in  the  bank. 

Q    What  bank  did  you  stick  that  in? 

A    Bank  of  America,  I  believe.   Bank  of  America  -- 
that's  the  name  of  it. 

Q     Do  you  have  an  account  at  Bank  of  America? 

A     I  had  an  account  there.   Just  for  that  time,  I  used 
that  bank  for  my  training  expenses,  to  move  checks  and  stuff 
through  there,  to  pay  my  sparring  partners  and  stuff  like 
that. 

Q  Let  us  go  back  now,  just  to  clarify  the  record. 
Top  Rank,  in  connection  with  the  Toney  fight  on  February 
13th,  wrote  you  two  checks;  is  that  correct? 

A    What  two  checks  they  wrote  me? 

Q     Let  me  go  through  that.   They  wrote  you  one  check 
for  $824,985,  and  then  they  wrote  you  a  second  check  for 
$10,000  in  training  expenses;  is  that  correct? 

A    Yeah,  that's  correct.   Yeah. 


215 


MILL£RI 

507  C  Street.  N.E 

Washington.  D  C 


l 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

CO..  mQ  5 


Q    So  Top  Rank  wrote  you  two  checks  in  connection  with 
that  fight? 

A    Right. 

Q    Let  me  ask  you  a  few  questions  about  some  of  the 
payouts  that  you  then  made  prior  to  the  fight.   How  much 
money  did  Lenny  Minuto,  who  you  told  us  at  your  last  deposi- 
tion was  your  adviser.   How  much  money  did  Lenny  Minuto 
receive  in  connection  with  the  Toney  fight  on  February  13, 
1993? 

A     He  had  received  $395,000. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   I  believe  it  is  $295,000. 
THE  WITNESS:   $295,000;  yeah. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q     Mr.  Lenny  Minuto  received  $295,000;  is  that 
correct? 

A    Yeah,  $295,000. 

Q    How  did  you  pay  him  this  money? 

A    Two  separate  checks . 

Q    Two  separate  checks? 

A    Yeah.   One  was  paid,  $100,000,  and  one  $195,000 
check. 

Q 

A 

Q 


Were  these  checks  from  your  personal  account? 

Those  was  in  my  personal  account;  yes. 

The  checks  that  wrote  to  Lenny  Minuto,  were  they 


personal  checks  from  your  account? 


216 


MILLER  I 

507  C  Street.  NE 

Washington    D  C 


l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-      24 

CO..  INfi  5 


A     Yeah,  they  were  from  my  account. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   The  question  is  were  they  personal 
checks  or  were  they  other  forms  of  checks? 

THE  WITNESS:   They  wasn't  personal  checks. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q    Were  they  Cashier's  Checks? 

A    Cashiers  Checks. 

Q    Why  did  you  pay  Mr.  Minuto  in  Cashier's  Checks  as 
opposed  to  personal  checks? 

A    Because  that's  the  way  I  paid  him. 

Q     Did  he  request  that  you  pay  him  with  Cashier's 
Checks? 

A 
Checks . 

Q     Isn't  it  more  difficult  to  get'a  Cashier's  Check 
than  to  just  write  a  check  from  your  checkbook? 

A    Well,  I  just  as  soon  pay  him  like  that. 

Q    Why? 

A     I  don't  know.   I  just  did  it.   I  just,  you  know, 
thought  it  was  the  right  thing  to  do,  and  I  just  did  it. 

Q     But  it  is  more  difficult  to  get  a  Cashier's  Check 
than  just  write  a  check  on  your  bank  account;  is  that 
correct? 

A    Meaning? 

Q     You  have  a  checkbook,  is  that  correct,  on  your  bank 


No,  he  did  not  request  that  I  pay  him  Cashier's 


217 


i 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO     INc2  5 
S07  C  Sum.  N  E 
Washington.  D  C      20002 


account? 

A     Yeah. 

Q    You  could  just  write  a  check  out  and  hand  it  to  Mr. 
Minuto,  or  you  have  to  go  to  the  bank  and  have  the  bank  fill 
out  a  cashier's  check.   So  it  is  more  difficult  to  do  it  that 
way  than  to  just  write  a  check  from  your  account  --  that  is 
what  I  am  asking  --  is  that  correct? 

A    Oh,  yeah,  it's  more  difficult  that  way. 
Q     I  am  just  asking  why  you  go  to  that  extra  hassle 
and  expense  for  yourself? 

A     It  was  no  hassle. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   Excuse  me  for  a  second. 
[Witness  and  his  counsel  conferred.] 
BY  MR.  LORD: 
Q    Did  you  pay  Eddie  Mustafa  Muhammed  with  a  Cashier's 
check? 

MR.  TUOHEY:   Excuse  me  for  a  second. 
[Witness  and  his  counsel  conferred.] 
THE  WITNESS:   Yeah,  I  paid  Mustafa  with  a  personal 
check.   I  wrote  a  check  and  wired  it  to  him.   That's  the  way 
he  wanted  it. 

BY  MR.  LORD: 
Q    When  you  pay  your  bills  and  pay  the  telephone 
company  and  things  like  that,  do  you  typically  do  that  with  a 
personal  check? 


218 


1  A    Yeah.   I  don't  handle  the  checks  and  pay  my  bills. 

2  My  fiancee  does  that. 

3  Q     But  she  does  that  with  personal  checks  -- 

4  A    Yeah. 

5  Q        from  your  checking  account? 

6  A    The  checking  account,  yes. 

Q     Do  you  pay  anyone  other  than  Mr.  Minuto  with 

8  cashier's  checks? 

9  A    No .   I  mean,  if  someone  asks  me  to  pay  them  with  a 

10  cashier's  check,  I  have  paid,  you  know,  car  dealers  with  a 

11  cashier's  check  and  stuff  like  that,  and  I  didn't  think  there 

12  was  anything  wrong  with  it. 

13  Q     I  am  not  trying  to  say  there  is  anything  wrong  with 

14  it.   I  am  just  trying  to  understand  why  you  would  go  to  that 

15  extra  trouble  to  pay  your  advisor  with  a  cashier's  check 

16  rather  than  a  personal  check? 

17  A    To  me ,  I  didn't  think  it  was  no  trouble.   I  just 

18  paid  him  like  that. 

19  Q     Did  Mr.  Minuto  want  you  to  pay  him  that  way? 

20  A    No,  he  did  not. 

21  Q     You  said  that  you  gave  Mr.  Minuto  two  checks.   The 

22  first  one  was  for  $100,000.   Were  these  two  checks  for 

23  different  purposes?   Were  you  paying  him  for  different 

24  reasons?      Why   did   you   pay   him    in   two   checks? 
miller  reporting  co..  wfi  5  a  Because   there   was    different    reasons. 

50?  C  Succi.  N  E 
Washington.  D  C      20002 


219 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  INc2  5 
SO"  C  Street.  N  E 
ttasrunrton.  D  C      20002 


Q    That's  what  I  want  to  ask  about. 
A    Yeah,  there  was  different  reasons. 

Q    And  so  you  paid  Mr.  Minuto  two  checks  because  each 
check  represented  a  -- 

A    A  different  reason. 

Q    --a  different  reason.   Right. 

The  first  check  for  $100,000,  what  was  that  payment 


for? 

A    That  was  the  payment  for  the  fight,  I  guess.   You 
know,  that  was  the  payment  for  the  fight. 

Q     For  the  Toney  fight? 

A    For  the  Toney  fight. 

Q    What  was  your  agreement  with  Mr.  Minuto?   How  much 
were  you  going  to  pay  him?   Were  you  going  to  pay  him  a 
percentage,  or  were  you  going  to  pay  him  a  set  amount? 

A     I  was  paying  him  a  percentage. 

Q    What  percentage? 

A    Well,  it  was  supposed  to  have  been  10  percent. 

Q     10  percent  of  $1  million? 

A    Right. 

Q    Which  would  be  $100,000? 

A    Right. 

Q     So  the  $100,000  represents  your  payment  to  Mr. 
Minuto  as  your  advisor  in  connection  with  the  fight? 

A    Right. 


220 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

—   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  INC2  5 
}0?  C  Street.  N  E 
^airufigton.  DC      20002 


49 


Q    What  was  the  $195,000  payment  for? 

A    Well,  that  was  for  payments  that  I  had  owed  him 
for,  you  know,  bills  that  he  did  for  me:   my  surgery,  he  took 
care  of  me,  he  fed  me,  clothed  me,  and  gave  me,  you  know, 
money  to  live,  apartment  out  in  Vegas. 

Q     So  the  $195,000  represents  money  you  owed  to  Mr. 
Minuto;  is  that  correct? 

A    Yeah.   I  wouldn't  say  owed.   I  mean,  that  I 
borrowed  --  I  guess  that  I,  you  know  owed--  if  you  want  to 
say  it  like  that. 

Q     But,  if  there  is  a  better  way  to  say  it,  I  -- 

A     I  don't  know  a  better  way  to  say  it.   But  I'm 
saying  I  don't  want  it  to  look,  like,  shaky. 

Q    Well,  it's  not  shaky.    I  owe  Mr.  Levin  $5  right 
now,  and  it  is  not  shaky. 

A    All  right.   Owed.   Then  that's  what  I  am  saying, 
owed . 

Q     You  said  one  of  the  things  you  owed  him  money  for 
was  your  eye  operation? 

A    My  eye  surgery. 

Q    At  the  last  deposition,  you  said  that  was  ap- 
proximately $6,000;  is  that  correct? 

A    Possibly,  six-,  maybe,  more.   I  don't  know.   We 
didn't  have  no  receipts. 

Q     In  the  range  of  $6,000;  is  that  accurate? 


221 


gas 


50 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

II 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-  24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO.,  mg  5 
507  C  Sued.  N  E 
lashingion.  DC      20002 


A    The  eye  operation  could  have  been  anywhere  from 
ten-,  maybe  six-/seven  thousand.   I  don't  know. 

Q     In  the  range  of  $10,000? 

A    Right,  from  the  visits  and  everything  and  stuff 
like  that. 

Q    And  you  say  he  also  helped  pay  expenses  like  food 
and  apartment  rent? 

A    Right,  apartment  rent  and  stuff  like  that. 

Q    What  other  expenses  did  he  pay  for  you? 

A    He  just  gave  me  expense  money,  you  know,  to  live. 

Q    What  type  of  expense  of  money?   How  much  are  we 
talking  about? 

A    Sometimes  he  gave  me,  like,  $5,000  to  clean  up  all 
my  bills  and  stuff;  $300  here,  $700  here,  maybe  $1,000  here 
sometimes.   I  don't  know. 

Q    What  was  the  largest  amount  of  money  that  Mr. 
Minuto  ever  loaned  you? 

A    The  largest  amount? 

Q     Yes. 

A     $5,000. 

Q    Did  Mr.  Minuto  keep  records  of  the  money  that  he 
loaned  you  and  advanced  you? 

A     I  believe  that  he  didn't  keep  records  like  that. 
You  know,  he  probably  did.   He  might 've  kept  records  because 
I  felt  that  I  didn't  have  to  keep  no  records  with  him. 


222 


1  Whatever  he  said  that  I  owed  him  and  when  he  pulled  out  the 

2  records  to  show  me  and  went  over  it  and  everything,  it 

3  refreshed  my  memory. 

4  Q    So  he  did  have  records  of  the  money? 

5  A    Yeah,  he  did.   He  remembered  the  records.   I  didn't 

6  have  no  records . 

Q    There  wasn't  any  reason  for  you  to  keep  them 

8  because  you  owed  him. 

9  A     I  didn ' t  have  no  records . 

10  Q     Did  you  agree  with  him  that  you  did  owe  him 

11  $195,000?   Did  you  agree?   Did  that  make  sense  when  you  saw 
\                     12  his  records  that  you  did,  in  fact,  owe  him  that  amount  of 

13  money? 

14  A    Yes. 

15  Q     Did  Mr.  Minuto  charge  you  any  interest  for  the 

16  loans  he  had  given  you  over  this  period  of  time? 

17  A    No,  he  did  not. 

18  Q     So  there  were  no  interest  payments  included  in  the 

19  money  you  paid  him? 

20  A    No  interest  payments,  no  nothing.   It  was  just  like 

21  it  was . 

22  Q     Did  any  friends,  relatives,  associates  of  Mr. 

23  Minuto  ever  loan  you  money? 
—   24        A    No. 

miixer reporting co.. in<2 5  Q  Did   Mr.    Minuto   ever   arrange    for   other   people   to 

>cr  C  Sueci.  N.E 
WubicgTon,  D  C      2000; 


223 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN&  5 
507  CSntti,  NE 
Wishinpon.  DC      20002 


loan  you  money? 

A    No. 

Q    Did  Mr.  Minuto  receive  any  other  money  in  connec- 
tion with  your  fight,  directly  from  the  promoter  Bob  Arum? 

A    No. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   Not  that  you  know  of. 
THE  WITNESS:   Not  that  I  know  of.   No,  not  that  I 
know  of . 

BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q    Mr.  Arum  told  us  that  Mr.  Minuto  was  going  to 
receive  $150,000  directly  from  him  in  connection  with  the 
Toney  fight.   Are  you  aware  of  this  payment? 

A    Not  that  I  know  of . 

Q    Mr.  Arum  said  that  the  payment  was  going  to  be 
termed  a  co-promotional  payment.   Do  you  know  what  that 
means?   Do  you  know  what  it  means  to  be  a  co-promotional 
payment? 

A    No. 

Q    Mr.  Arum  also  told  staff  that,  in  the  course  of  the 
negotiations  for  the  Barley-Toney  fight,  you  were  a  part  of 
those  negotiations  and  that  you  were  aware  of  the  fact  that 
Mr.  Minuto  was  going  to  get  a  co-promotional  payment  directly 
from  Top  Rank. 

A    Bob  Arum  is  a  liar  because  I  was  not  aware  of  that 
he  was  going  to  get  money  from  --  that  Mr.  Minuto  was  going 


224 


gds 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

_  24 

MILIEH  REPORTING  CO..  \H&  5 
Uajhrnpon    D  C      2O0O2 


to  receive  money  --  where? 

Q     From  Top  Rank.   It  was  going  to  be  a  payment  made 
by  Top  Rank.   Not  out  of  your  purse,  but  out  of  the  promoter's 
share  of  the  profits? 

A     I  never  heard  of  that.   I  never  heard  of  that. 

Q     So,  in  the  course  of  the  negotiations  with  Top  Rank 
and  Bob  Arum  --  and  I  assume  Mr.  Minuto  was  present;  is  that 
correct? 

A     [No  response  .  ] 

Q    When  you  were  negotiating  with  Mr.  Arum  about  the 
fight,  I  assume  Mr.  Minuto  was  present;  is  that  correct? 

A    Oh,  yeah,  he  was  present. 

Q     Did  the  topic  of  Mr.  Minuto  receiving  a  payment 
from  Mr.  Arum  ever  come  up? 

A     No. 

Q    Did  Mr.  Minuto  ever  discuss  with  you  his  receiving 
a  payment  directly  from  Bob  Arum? 

A     No. 

Q     So,  to  your  knowledge,  the  money  that  you  paid  Mr. 
Minuto  is  the  only  money  Mr.  Minuto  received  in  connection 
with  your  fight? 

A    That  is  it. 

BY  MR.  LEVIN: 

Q    Mr.  Barkley,  were  you  involved  with  the  negotia- 
tions for  the  Barkley-Toney  fight  with  Bob  Arum? 


225 


gcs 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

If 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN<2  5 
507  C  Suect.  N.E 
Washington.  D  C      20002 


54 


Was  I  involved? 

Yes. 

Yeah,  with  Bob  Arum.   Yeah,  I  was  there.   I  was 


A 

Q 

A 
there . 

Q    Who  else  was  there? 

A     It  was  me,  Mustafa,  and  Minuto. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q    Mr.  Arum  also  told  us  that  the  fight  would  not 
happen  unless  he  paid  Minuto  this  extra  amount  of  money.   Is 
that  true? 

A    That's  baloney.   That  is  garbage.   You  know,  that 
is  garbage.   And  Mr.  Arum  knows  it  is  garbage  because  of  the 
simple  fact  the  fight  was  already  signed,  sealed,  and 
delivered. 

Q    This  is  prior  to  the  fight.   This  is  when  the 
negotiations  were  taking  place.   He  said  that  he  had  to  agree 
to  pay  Mr.  Minuto  a  sum  of  money  out  of  his  share,  or  you 
wouldn't  fight.   The  fight  wouldn't  happen. 

A     I  had  no  knowledge  of  that,  you  know,  and  I  never 
heard  of  that.   And  that's  a  lie. 
BY  MR.  LEVIN: 

Q     To  your  knowledge,  were  you  present  at  all  meetings 
which  occurred  between  Top  Rank  and  your  representatives 
regarding  the  Barkley-Toney  fight? 

A    Yes ,  I  was . 


226 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  Inc2  5 

507  CStimi    N.E 

*  aihuipon    D  C      2000: 


55 


MR.  TUOHEY:   Let  me  interrupt  here.   Be  careful 
about  this . 

BY  MR.  LEVIN: 
Q     I  am  asking  just  what  you  know. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   There  could  have  been  meetings  that 
you  didn't  know  about. 

THE  WITNESS:   Maybe  there  was.   I  am  saying  to  my 
knowledge,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 
BY  MR.  LEVIN: 
Q    There  were  no  meetings  -- 
A    There  was  no  meetings  -- 

Q     --  that  you  did  not  attend  regarding  the  negotia- 
tions for  the  Barkley-Toney? 

A    That's  right.   Yeah. 

Q    And  you  don't  recall  any  discussions  about  any 
separate  payments,  apart  from  the  purse,  that  were  going  from 
Top  Rank  to  Lenny  Minuto? 
A    No,  I  don't. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 
Q    Mr.  Barkley,  this  is  in  a  previous  deposition,  but 
let  me  just  repeat  it  for  this  record  that  we  are  creating 
today.   You  told  us  the  last  time  that  Mr.  Minuto  is  your 
adviser;  is  that  correct? 
A    Yes . 
Q    Mr.  Minuto  does  not  serve  as  your  manager;  is  that 


227 


i 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN<2  5 
507  C  Street.  NE 
Washington.  D  C     20002 


correct? 

A    Yes. 

Q    Also,  in  that  deposition,  on  page  42,  your  answer 
starting  on  line  17,  you  were  explaining  that  --  and  I  am 
reading  from  line  20. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   You  are  talking  about  Mr.  Minuto? 
MR.  LORD:   Yes. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 
Q     "And  I  know  the  game,  and  Lenny,  he's  learning,  you 
know,  from  what  we  have  showed  him,  and  he  sits  in  with  us 
and  we  talk,  you  know." 

Starting  on  line  20  and  21.   You  are  saying  that 
Mr.  Minuto  doesn't  know  a  whole  lot  about  the  sport  of 
boxing.   He's  learning  the  sport  of  boxing  from  you  and  Eddie 
Mustafa  Muhammed .   Is  that  a  correct  characterization  of  that 
testimony? 

A    Just  about,  yes.   That's  correct,  yes.   That's 
correct . 

Q     So  you  would  agree  that  Mr.  Minuto  does  not  know  a 
lot  about  the  sport  of  boxing? 
A    No ,  he  don ' t . 

Q    And  that  he  is  learning  the  sport  from  you  -- 
A    Yes . 

Q     --  among  other  people? 
A    Among  what  other  people? 


228 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN<2  5 
»7  C  Succt.  N  E 
Washmgton    D  C      20003 


5  7 


Q    He's  learning  the  sport  of  boxing  from  you,  among 
other  people? 

A  Oh,  yeah.  It's  not  hard  to  learn  this  game.  Like 
I  explained  to  him,  you  know,  "the  more  you  be  around  me  and 
the  more  that  you  go  to  fights,  you'll  learn  the  game." 

Q     So  Mr .  Minuto  is  learning? 

A    That's  right. 

Q     My  question  to  you,  Mr.  Barkley,  is,  if  Mr.  Minuto 
doesn't  know  the  sport  of  boxing  very  well.   He  is  learning. 
You  are  teaching  him.   Why  do  you  pay  him  $100,000  in 
connection  to  one  of  your  fights? 

A    Well,  see,  you  say,  you  know,  why  do  I  pay  him 
this.   You  know,  if  it  was  not  for  this  man,  I  would  not  be 
back  in  boxing. 

Q     Explain  that  for  us,  please. 

A     I  mean,  with  my  eye  surgery  and  everything,  you 
know,  this  man  came  along  and  allowed  me  to  box  again, 
allowed  me  to  fight,  you  know,  and  it  don't  take  a  knowledge- 
able man  to  know  that.   You  know,  it  took  a  friend  like  him 
to  come  and  say,  "Hey,  you  want  to  fight  again?" 

I  said,  "No,  I  don't  really  want  to  fight.   You 
know,  I  don't  want  to  fight." 

But  he  said,  "Iran,  I  don't  want  to  see  you  waste 
your  talent . " 

You  know  what  I'm  saying?   And  I  don't  see  there  is 


229 


gas 

1 
2 
3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

II 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MIU-ER  REPORTING  CO.,  INtfi  5 
50"  C  Street.  N  E 
Washington,  D  C      20002 


anything  wrong  with  it.   At  the  time,  I  didn't  have  it  to  do 
it.   You  know,  I  didn't  have  it  to  do  it. 

Q    At  this  time,  did  Mr.  Minuto  lend  you  money? 

A    At  this  time? 

Q    At  that  time,  when  you  were  contemplating  retire- 
ment from  boxing  and  Mr.  Minuto  came  to  you  and  told  you  he 
didn't  want  you  to  waste  your  talent,  was  that  the  point  when 
he  was  lending  you  money,  helping  you  get  on  your  feet? 

A    He  was,  like,  helping  me  get  on  my  feet.   I  didn't 
see  anything  was  wrong  with  it. 

Q     I  am  not  saying  there  is  anything  wrong  with  it.   I 
am  just  trying  to  understand. 

A    Oh,  okay.   But  I  am  saying,  yeah.   You  know,  at 
that  time,  he  came  along,  and  we  was  already  friends.   And, 
you  know,  he  just  didn't  want  to  see  me  go  the  wrong  way,  so 
he  kept  me  on  the  right  track. 

Q    So  Mr.  Minuto  is  more  sort  of  a  personal  advisor, 
personal  friend  to  you  than  a  boxing  advisor;  is  that 
correct? 

A    That's  right. 

Q    At  your  last  deposition,  and  I  won't  go  to  the  page 
numbers,  but  you  also  told  us  that  Mr.  Minuto  gave  you 
investment  advice  from  time  to  time;  is  that  correct? 

A    Yes . 

Q     In  connection  with  your  SI  million  purse  from  the 


230 


1  Toney  fight,  has  Mr.  Minute  given  you  any  investment  advice? 

2  A     No.   Basically,  the  advice  that  he  passed  on  to  me, 

3  I  basically  know  now  how  to  do  it  myself. 

4  Q     So  Mr.  Minuto  has  not  given  you  any  advice  on  how 

5  to  spend  your  million-dollar  purse? 

6  A    No.   If  I  need  to  ask  him  a  question  or  something, 

7  you  know,  he'll  probably  advise  me  or  something. 

8  Q     Mr .  Minuto  did  attend  the  fight,  didn't  he? 

9  A    To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  he  did.   I  was  in  the 

10  ring. 

11  Q     Right.   But  he  was  in  Las  Vegas  at  the  time  when 

12  you  were  getting  ready  for  the  fight. 

13  A     Yeah. 

14  Q     So,  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge,  he  did  attend 

15  the  fight? 

16  A     Yeah,  he  did. 

17  Q     Do  you  know  if  Mr.  Minuto  is  involved  with  any 

18  other  boxers  at  this  time? 

19  A     I  don't  know.   At  this  time,  as  far  as  I  know,  not 

20  that  I  know  of. 

21  Q     In  the  past,  was  Mr.  Minuto  ever  involved  with  a 

22  boxer  named  Dennis  Milton? 

23  A     Dennis  was  his  fighter,  yeah. 

24  Q     Is  he  still  involved  with  Dennis  Milton? 
mill£r reporting co., rnfi 5       a    As  far  as  I  know,  I  guess  he  is. 

10'  C  Street    N  E 
Wuhingion,  D  C      20002 


231 


i 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO.,  IN&  5 
507  C  Street.  N  E 
Washington,  DC      20002 


Q     Is  Dennis  Milton  still  boxing? 

A    No,  he  is  not.   He  took  a  little  leave  of  absence 
for  a  minute. 

Q     How  about  Roberto  Duran .   Has  Mr.  Minuto  ever  been 
involved  with  Roberto  Duran? 
A     No. 

Q    Does  he  know  Roberto  Duran? 
A    He  met  him. 

Is  he  friends  with  Roberto  Duran? 

What  do  you  call  a  friend?   Everybody  is  a  friend. 
Well,  I  am  not  a  friend  of  Roberto  Duran's.   Does 
he  meet  with  Roberto  socially? 
A    No,  he  don't. 

Does  he  have  meals  with  Roberto  Duran? 
Not  that  I  know. 

Does  he  ever  give  advice  to  Roberto  Duran? 
Not  that  I  know  of. 

Does  he  ever  negotiate  on  behalf  of  Roberto  Duran? 
A    Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q    But  you  do  know  that  he  knows  Roberto  Duran? 
A     I  know  he  met  him  one  time. 

Q    How  about  a  Cuban  heavyweight  named  Gonzales  -- 
Jorge  Gonzales;  is  Mr.  Minuto  in  any  way  involved  with  Jorge 
Gonzales? 

A    Not  that  I  know  of. 


232 


ga£ 


MILL£R  REPORTING  CO.,  I 
50"  C  Sireei,  N  E 
Washington.  DC      20002 


1  Q    Are  you  aware  of  the  boxer? 

2  A    Yeah,  I'm  aware  of  Jorge.   Yes. 

3  Q    And  he  is  managed  by  someone  named  Luis  Cubas . 

4  A    Luis  Cubas. 

5  Q    Yes,  C-u-b-a-s .   Also,  from  Cuba. 

6  A    Yes. 

7  Q     Do  you  know  Luis  Cubas? 

8  A     I  met  the  man,  yeah. 

9  Q     Are  you  aware  that  Mr .  Minuto  is  involved  with  Luis 

10  Cubas  in  any  way? 

11  A     Not  that  I  know  of. 

12  Q     Can  you  think  of  any  other  boxers  that  Mr.  Minuto 

13  is  involved  with  at  this  time? 

14  A    The  only  boxer  I  know  he  was,  like,  being  with  me 

15  and,  as  far  as  Dennis,  I  don't  know  any  other  fighter. 

16  Q     Does  Mr.  Minuto  have  any  relatives  who  are  in  the 

17  boxing  business? 

18  A    Not  that  I  know  of. 

19  Q     Do  you  know,  I  believe,  it's  a  cousin  of  Mr. 

20  Minuto ' s  named  Marco  Minuto? 

21  A    Marco  Minuto? 

22  Q    Marco  Minuto.   Have  you  ever  met  a  Marco  Minuto, 

23  who  is  related  to  Lenny  Minuto? 

24  A     No,  I  haven't. 

'25        Q    Marco  Minuto,  until  about  a  year  ago,  was  a  manager 


233 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

II 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-      24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  In£>  5 
50"  C  Strcci.  N  E 
Waihinpon    D  C      20002 


--  a  boxing  manager  --  licensed  to  manage  boxers  in  New  York 
state.   Have  you  ever  heard  of  Marco  Minuto? 

A     No. 

Q    Lenny  Minuto  has  never  discussed  his  relative  Marco 
with  you? 

A    No. 

Q    A  few  questions  about  Stan  Hoffman.   Did  you  have 
any  contact  with  Stan  Hoffman  in  connection  with  the  Toney 
fight? 

A     No. 

Q     Did  Stan  Hoffman  perform  any  services  for  you  in 
connection  with  the  Toney  fight? 

A    No .   I  don't  know  why  he  would  because  he  didn't 
work  for  me . 

Q     Bob  Arum,  again,  told  staff  that  Hoffman  was  to 
paid  a  total  of  $50,000  in  connection  with  your  fight  with 
James  Toney.   $25,000  was  to  come  out  of  the  Minuto  share, 
and  $25,000  was  going  to  be  paid  by  him.   Are  you  aware  that 
Bob  Arum  and  Top  Rank  were  going  to  pay  Stan  Hoffman  in 
connection  with  your  Toney  fight? 

A    No,  I  wasn't. 

Q    Did  Stan  Hoffman  ever  call  you,  ever  talk  to  you  on 
a  phone  --  any  type  of  contact  --  in  connection  with  the 
Toney  fight? 

A     I  talked  to  Stan  one  time. 


234 


gas 


63 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

yiLLEH  REPORTING  CO..  wfi  5 
50"  C  StICCI,  N  E 
STuhinpron    D  C      20002 


Q 
A 
going?  " 


Do  you  remember  what  you  talked  about? 

"How  'ya  doing?   How  ' ya  feel?   How's  the  training 


"Fine . " 

You  know,  the  usual  stuff. 
Q    Did  Stan  Hoffman  give  you  any  advice  about  how  you 
should  be  training,  how  you  should  be  eating  --  things  like 
that? 

A    No. 

Q     Do  you  remember  approximately  when  that  conversa- 
tion took  place? 

A    Well,  at  the  time,  Stan  had  a  fighter  that  was 
living  in  my  house  with  me. 
Q    Who  was  that? 

A    Ricky  Myers.   And  he  used  to  cail  there  for  him  a 
lot.   I  asked  Stan  then,  "What's  up?   How's  things  going?" 
"Oh,  fine.   How's  training  going?" 
"Great. " 

"How's  Ricky  doing?" 
"He ' s  fine . " 
Q     Did  Stan  ever  come  by  while  you  were  training,  to 
see  you  while  you  were  training,  watch  you  train,  for  the 
Toney  fight? 

A    For  the  Toney  fight? 
Q     Yes. 


235 


i 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

1! 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  INC2  5 
™-  C  Socci.  N  E 
5"ashinpion    D  C      20002 


64 


A    No .   I  ain't  see  him  nowhere  around. 

Q     Did  he  ever  visit  you  in  your  hotel  when  you  were 
staying  in  Las  Vegas,  come  by  and  see  you? 

A     I  didn't  stay  in  the  hotel. 

Q     In  your  apartment,  in  Las  Vegas? 

A    No. 

Q    He  never  came  by  and  visited  you? 

A     No. 

Q    We  had  heard  that,  at  one  point  prior  to  the  Toney 
fight,  you  were  having  weight  problems;  is  that  correct? 

A     Last  memories.   Yeah. 

Q    At  one  point,  you  were  somewhere  in  the  range  of 
189  pounds;  is  that  correct? 

A     I  wouldn't  say  that  much.   I  would  say  about 
175/176. 

Q     Is  it  correct  that  you  had  to  be  at  168  pounds  to 
fight  at  super  middleweight;  is  that  correct? 

A    That's  correct. 

Q    Did  Stan  Hoffman  in  any  counsel  or  help  you  with 
your  diet? 

A    No ,  he  did  not. 

Q    Were  you  on  any  special  diet  program  to  try  to  lose 
weight  while  you  were  preparing  for  the  fight? 

A    My  diet. 

Q    What  is  that? 


236 


gas 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  INc2  5 
W7  C  Street.  N  E 
ttuhinpton    D  C      20002 


A    Good  ole  abilene  and  good  ole  sweating  and  hard 
work. 

Q     Did  anyone  give  you  any  advice  or  did  you  at  any 
time  start  eating  large  amounts  of  sherbet  in  connection  with 
your  trying  to  lose  weight? 

A     I  ate  that  sherbet  at  the  last  day  of  the  fight  -- 
not  the  last  day  of  the  fight  --  a  day  before  the  weigh-in 
that  night.   I  weighed  at  168  pounds  but,  in  the  course  of  me 
leaving  to  go  weigh  in,  I  had  gotten  hungry.   So  I  took  the 
sherbet  ice  cream  and  I  ate  it,  and  it  put  the  weight  back  on 

Q     So  no  one  gave  you  the  advice  of  eating  sherbet  to 
lose  weight  at  the  time  you  were  training? 

A    No. 

Q    And  you  were  not  on  the  sherbet  diet  for  the  * 
prior  to  the  fight? 

A     No. 

Q     In  your  last  deposition,  you  stated  --  and  this  is 
on  page  41,  at  the  bottom.   At  some  point,  we  were  talking 
about  Stan  Hoffman  and  what  role  he  played. 

MR.  TUOHEY:   You  are  not  on  page  41. 
MR.  LORD:   No,  we  are  not. 
BY  MR.  LORD: 

Q    In  that  deposition,  you  stated  that  Stan  Hoffman 
played  no  role  in  your  career  at  that  time.   This  is  December 
16th.   Is  that  correct? 


237 


i 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

1 

19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
-   24 

MILL£R  REPORTING  CO..  IN<2  5 
507  C  Sum.  N  E 


A    No  role? 

Q     Staff  Hoffman  played  no  role  in  your  career. 

A    No. 

Q    Since  that  deposition,  December  16,  has  Stan 
Hoffman  played  any  role  in  your  career? 

A    No. 

Q     Is  there  any  reason  that  Stan  Hoffman  would  have 
received  payments  in  connection  with  you  as  a  fighter? 

A     I  don't  know  what  reason  would  somebody  pay  Stan 
Hoffman  that  type  of  money  in  connection  with  my  fight  when 
the  man  has  nothing  to  do  with  me. 

Q    Could  Lenny  Minuto,  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge, 
have  arranged  for  Stan  Hoffman,  to  receive  payment  in 
connection  with  your  fight? 

A    No.   No. 

Q    Why  do  you  say  that? 

A    Because  I  know  he  wouldn't  have  arranged  nothing 
like  that,  and  I  know  all  ties  was  broken  with  me  and  him  and 
Stan.   I  know  that  for  a  fact.   No,  he  wouldn't.   No. 

Q    Have  you  ever  heard  anyone  refer  to  Mr.  Minuto  as  a 
mob  guy,  as  a  La  Cosa  Nostra  member,  as  a  mafia  member? 

A    No ,  I  haven't. 

Q    Have  you  ever  heard  of  anybody  refer  to  him  as  sort 
of  a  tough  guy,  a  guy  that  you  better  pay  or  there  is  going 
to  be  trouble? 


65-875  O  -  93  -  10 


238 


MILLER  REPORTING  CO., 
}07  C  Sttcci.  N  E 
4-ubincion    D  C      2onc 


1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

«2  5 


A    No .   I  mean  Mr.  Minuto  is  not  like  that. 

Q     Eddie  Mustafa  Muhammed  how  much  money  did  he 
receive  in  connection  with  the  Toney  fight? 

A    What  was  down  there.   He  was  supposed  to  get  10 
percent  of  the  fight. 

Q     So  his  total  would  have  been  $100,000;  is  that 
correct? 

A    Yes. 

Q     Did  you  write  Mr.  Mustafa  Muhammed  a  check  after 
the  fight? 


Yes,  I  did. 

How  much  was  that  check  for? 

I  believe  it  was  for  75-. 

75-? 

MR.  TUOHEY:   He  testified  $75,000. 

BY  MR.  LORD: 

$75,000. 

Yes. 

Is  it,  also,  correct  that  you  had  paid  Mr.  Mustafa 
Muhammed  the  additional  $25,000  you  owed  him  out  of  the 
training  expenses? 

A    Training  expenses. 

Q    What  did  Mr.  Mustafa  Muhammed  do  for  you  in 
connection  with  the  Toney  fight? 

A    He  trained  me  for  the  fight. 


239 


9 

10 

11 

I 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

- 

24 

MILL£R  REPORTING  CO 

in2  5 

507  C  Street    N  E 

0    Was  he  training  you  on  a  daily  basis? 

A    Every  day. 

Q    He  was  with  you  every  day? 

A    Every  day. 

Q    Did  he  help  you  make  weight? 

A     I  practically  would  say  he  might  have  took  most  of 
the  weight  out  of  me  that  I  didn't  have  to  drain  them  four 
pounds  off. 

Q    How  about  John  Joseph  Conti  did  he  receive  any 
payments  in  connection  with  the  Toney  fight? 

A    No,  he  did  not. 

Q     Did  you  owe  him  any  money? 

A     No ,  I  did  not. 

Q  I  just  want  to  ask  a  few  more  questions  regarding 
Mr.  Minuto  before  we  finish  up.  Have  you  ever  gambled  with 
Mr.  Minuto? 

A    No,  I  haven't. 

Q  Have  you  ever  played  the  tables  in  Las  Vegas  with 
Mr.  Minuto? 

A     No. 

Q     Atlantic  City? 

A     I'm  not  a  gambler. 

Q    Have  you  ever  placed  any  kind  of  bet  through  Mr. 
Minuto? 

A    No,  I  have  not  placed  any  bets  through  Mr.  Minuto. 


240 


gas 

1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

li 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN<2  5 
107  C  Sircci.  N.E 


Q    Are  you  aware  that  Mr.  Minuto  has  been  arrested  and 
convicted,  I  believe,  it  is  some  seven  times  for  gambling- 
related  offenses? 

A     I  have  never  known  that . 

Q    You  have  no  knowledge  that  Mr.  Minuto  has  been 
arrested? 

A    No  knowledge  whatsoever  of  that. 

Q     Have  you  ever  known  or  has  anyone  ever  told  you 
that  Mr.  Minuto  is  a  book  maker  or  a  bookie?   Have  you  ever 
heard  that? 

A    No,  I  never  heard  that. 

Q     Do  you  know  what  a  bookie  or  a  book  maker  is? 

A     No. 

Q     You  have  no  knowledge  what  a  book  maker  or  a  bookie 
is? 

A     No,  what  is  it? 

Q     Someone  who  takes  bets,  takes  illegal  bets,  takes 
bets  on  horses,  on  numbers,  on  different  things  like  that, 
football  games. 

A    No. 

Q     So  you  have  no  knowledge  that  Mr.  Minuto  is  in  any 
way  connected  with  book  making? 

A    No  knowledge  whatsoever. 

Q     Had  you  ever  heard  that  Mr.  Minuto  was  convicted  of 
bribing  a  public  official? 


241 


MILLER  REPORTING  CO 
}07  C  Street,  N  E 


1 

2 
3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

1! 

19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
-  24 
5 


A    No. 

Q    Has  Minuto  ever  given  you  the  option  to  place  a  bet 
with  him  or  any  of  his  associates? 

A    Never.   I  have  never  known  nothing  like  that. 

0    Are  you  aware  that  the  April  1,  1993  hearing  before 
the  Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations,  there  was 
testimony  to  the  effect  that  Mr.  Minuto  is  an  associate  of 
the  Luchese  organized  crime  family?   Are  you  aware  of  that? 

A     No. 

Q    Has  anyone  told  you  that  there  was  testimony  to  the 
effect  that  Mr.  Minuto  was  associated  with  the  Luchese 
organized  crime  family? 

A    No  one  told  me. 

Q    Have  you  ever  heard  it  or  read  it  anywhere? 

A    No,  I  never  read  it,  never  heard  it,  never  seen  it. 

Q    There  was  also  testimony  to  the  effect  that  Mr. 
Conti  is  a  member  of  the  Luchese  organized  crime  family.   Are 
you  aware  of  that? 

A     No. 

Q     Have  you  ever  read  anywhere  or  heard  that  Mr.  Conti 
is  a  member  of  the  Luchese  organized  crime  family? 

A    No. 

Q    Let  me  just  ask  you  a  few  finish-up  questions,  and 
then  I  will  let  Mr.  Levin  ask  you  if  he  has  any. 

What  is  the  future,  as  far  as  your  boxing  career  is 


242 


10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IE 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
-   24 

MIILER  REPORTING  CO  .  1nc2  5 
)07  C  Suect.  N  E 


concerned? 

A     What  is  my  future? 

Q     Yes  . 

A     I  intend  to,  like  I  had  a  deviated  septum  nose 
operation  done  from  the  last  fight,  and  I  intend  to  continue 
on  boxing.   I  am  going  to  move  up  to  cruiser  weight  and  that 
is  that. 

Q     So  you  are  going  to  continue  with  your  career  as  a 
professional  boxer? 

A    Yes  . 

Q     Is  Mr.  Minuto  going  to  continue  to  serve  as  your 
advisor? 

A    No. 

Q    Why  is  that? 

A     Because,  man,  I  can  advise  myself. 

Q     Is  Mr.  Minuto  going  to  continue  to  receive  any 
payment  from  you  in  connection  with  your  boxing  purses? 

A     No. 

Q     Is  Mr.  Eddie  Mustafa  Muhammed  going  to  continue  to 
receive  any  payment  from  you? 

A     Yes. 

Q     In  what  capacity? 

A    As  my  trainer  still . 

MR.  LORD:   I  don't  have  any  further  questions. 
BY  MR.  LEVIN: 


243 


i 

: 

3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  IN<2  5 
50:  C  Slictl.  N.E 


Q    Let  me  just  ask  you  a  couple  questions,  Mr.  Barkley, 
about  the  second  payment  that  you  made  to  Mr.  Minuto,  which 
was  $195,000. 

A    Yes. 

Q    You  said  that  was  for  money  that  you  owed  him  for 
various  loans,  which  you  characterized  as  your  surgery,  your 
rent,  food.   Do  you  remember  the  time  frame  during  which  Mr. 
Minuto  loaned  you  that  money?   Are  we  talking  about  several 
years  or  are  we  talking  about  a  couple  of  months? 

A    You  are  talking  about  several  years  during  the  time 
that  I  was  coming  back  to  fight  from  my  operation.   We  are 
talking  about  years. 

Q    When  did  you  have  the  eye  surgery?   Roughly  what 
year,  do  you  remember? 

A     The  first  one? 

Q    The  one  that  Mr.  Minuto  loaned  you  the  money  for. 

A     I  think  two  Christmases  or  four  Christmases  or 
something  like  that. 

Q     Of  199  1  or  something  like  that? 

A    Maybe  like  -- 

Q     You  said  the  first  one  was  there  more  than  one? 

A    Yes.   I  had  two  operations. 

Q     Did  Mr.  Minuto  loan  you  money  for  both  of  those 
operations? 

A     No,  he  didn't. 


244 


1  Q    Which  one  did  he  loan  you  money  for? 

2  A    The  second  one . 

3  Q    And  that  is  the  one  you  said  was  roughly  two 

4  Christmases  ago? 

5  A    Yeah,  probably  two  Christmases  or  whatever. 

6  Christmas  --  I  tend  to  forget . 

7  Q     So  the  $195,000  was  money  that  has  accumulated  over 

8  a  couple  of  years  that  he  has  loaned  you  for  various  purposes 

9  A    You  know,  various  purposes  like  I  take  care  of  two 

10  families.   I  take  care  of  like  my  family  and  my  mother  and 

11  like  where  she  live  she  got  bills  and  stuff.   She  don't  work 

12  or  nothing,  and  she  has  got  bills  and  stuff,  and  things  was 

13  all  backed  up.   I  just  borrowed  maybe  like  $5,000  here, 

14  $2,000  here,  $1,000  here.   He  just  kept  a  record,  and  I  just 

15  paid  off  her  bills,  paid  off  mine  and  that  is  that. 

16  Q     Now,  when  he  loaned  you  this  money,  was  it  with  the 

17  understanding  that  you  would  pay  it  back? 

18  A    Yeah. 

19  Q    And  with  the  understanding  that  he  would  keep  track 

20  of  how  much  you  owed  him? 

21  A    With  the  understanding  that  he  would  keep  track  of 

22  how  much  I  owed  him  because  I  am  not  a  good  track  record,  and 

23  I  said,  "You  know,  hey,  whatever  I  owe  you,  I  pay  you  back. " 
—   24        Q    When  you  paxd  him  the  $195,000,  did  that  clean  the 

MIU.ER  REPORTING  CO..  INCL  5  Slate? 
507  C  Sirtci.  N  E 


245 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

15 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO  .  INC  5 
jm  C  Sirrti.  N  E 


A    Yes,  it  did.   It  should  have. 

Q    So,  as  of  now,  you  don't  owe  Mr.  Minuto  any  money. 

A    Nothing. 

Q    And  he,  I  understand  from  your  response  to  Mr. 
Lord's  question,  that  he  is  not  going  to  play  any  role  in 
your  career  from  now  on;  is  that  correct? 

A     No. 

Q     That  is  correct  or  that  is  not? 

A    That  is  correct. 

Q    That  is  correct. 

A    That  is  correct  that  he  is  not  playing  any  role  in 
my  career  any  ways .   I  mean  we  are  friends  and  that  is  what 
it  is  going  to  be. 

Q     So  you  don't  plan  on  making  any  future  payments  to 
Mr.  Minuto. 

A    No. 

Q    What  about  Mr.  Hoffman's  role  in  your  future  boxing 
career? 

A     No. 

Q     Have  you  discussed  with  Mr.  Hoffman  your  future 
plans  for  boxing? 

A     No. 

Q     Did  Mr.  Hoffman  speak  with  you  at  all  the  week 
before  the  Toney  fight  when  you  were  in  training? 

A    No,  because  I  don't  talk  to  nobody  then. 


246 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

1! 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

-   24 

MILLER  REPORTING  CO..  INc2  5 
507  C  Sueet,  N  E 


75 


Q    You  said  you  had  one  phone  call  when  he  called  your 
house  -- 

A    My  house  for  Ricky  Myers,  yeah. 

Q     Do  you  remember  -- 

A     I  don't  know  if  that  was  like  the  week  before  the 
fight . 

Q    Was  it  pretty  close  to  the  fight  --  somewhere 
around  that  time? 

A     It  was  pretty  close.   It  was  somewhere  around  there 

Q    And  that  was  the  only  contact  that  you  had  with  Mr. 
Hoffman  prior  to  the  Toney  fight. 

A    Yes . 

Q     Did  Mr.  Hoffman  indicate  to  you  at  that  time  that 
Bob  Arum  had  asked  him  to  get  in  touch  with  you  regarding 
your  training  for  the  Toney  fight? 

A    No. 

Q    He  was  just  calling  to  ask  for  Ricky  Myers. 

A    Ricky  Myers . 

Q    So  Mr.  Hoffman  never  called  you  directly  in  the 
couple  weeks  or  so  prior  to  the  Toney  fight. 

A    No. 

Q    Alter  the  Toney  fight,  have  you  had  any  discussions 
with  Mr.  Hoffman? 

A     No. 

Q    In  the  negotiations  that  went  on  between  your 


247 


1  people  and  Top  Rank  for  the  Toney  fight,  do  you  recall  any 

2  discussions  regarding  payments  to  be  made  to  Stan  Hoffman? 

3  A     No. 

4  Q    Whether  by  Top  Rank,  whether  by  you,  whether  by  Mr. 

5  Minuto? 

6  A    No. 

Q    Did  Mr.  Hoffman's  name  come  up  at  all  in  the 

8  negotiations? 

9  A    No. 

10  Q    And  he  was  not  present  at  all  during  any  of  the 

11  negotiations. 

12  A    Not  present,  not  around,  not  heard  of. 

13  MR.  LEVIN:   Okay. 

14  BY  MR.  LORD: 

15  Q    One  quick  thing.   Did  anyone  discuss  with  you, 

16  besides  your  attorneys,  your  appearing  for  this  deposition 

17  today? 

18  A    No. 

19  Q    Did  you  talk  to  Mr.  Minuto  about  your  appearing 

20  here  today? 

21  A    No. 

22  Q    Mr.  Arum? 

23  A    No,  nobody  knows. 

—      24  Q  I    assume   your    fiance  might    know. 

miujr retorting co. w2 5  A  She    is    the   only   one   that    knows    because    she   knew   I 

107  C  Street.  N  E 


248 


gas 


1   had  to  go  because  he  called. 

Q     So  no  one  else  discussed  this  appearance  with  you. 

A    No. 

Q     I  would  like  to  finish  by  saying  you  will  give  us 

5  any  additional  financial  records  that  you  find  in  connection 

6  with  the  Toney  fight? 
A     Yes,  I  will,  anything  that  I  find. 
Q     So  we  can  put  it  on  the  record  and  complete 

9   everything . 

MR.  TUOHEY:   Yes. 
MR.  LORD:   Thank  you  very  much. 
[Whereupon,  at  1:10  p.m,  the  proceedings  were 
13   adjourned. ] 


MILLER  REPORTING  CO  .  INC 
507  C  Succi.  N  E 
Whinrinn    fl  C      2nnn: 


249 


CERTIFICATE  OF  NOTARY  PUBLIC 

I,  GWEN  A.  SCHLEMMER,  the  officer  before  whom  the  foregoing  deposition  was 
taken,  do  hereby  testify  that  the  witness  whose  testimony  appears  in  the  foregoing 
deposition  was  duly  sworn  by  me;  that  the  testimony  of  said  witness  was  taken  by  me 
stenogTaphicaUy  and  thereafter  reduced  to  typewriting  under  my  direction;  that  said 
deposition  is  a  true  record  of  the  testimony  given  by  said  witness;  that  I  am  neither 
counsel  for,  related  to,  nor  employed  by  and  of  the  parties  to  the  action  in  which 
this  deposition  was  taken;  and  further,  that  I  an  not  a  relative  or  employee  of  any 
attorney  or  counsel  employed  by  the  parties  hereto  nor  financially  or  otherwise 
interested  in  the  outcome  of  the  action. 


GWEN  A.  SCHLEMMER 

Notary  Public  in  and  for 
the  District  of  Columbia 


+,\y 


My  commission  expires:  February  28,  1995 


250 


Senate  Permanent  Subcommittee 
on  Investigations 

pmSH  #     2-0 


Louis  J   DiBella 

Vice  President.  General  Counsel  and  Chief  Administrative  Officet 


March  26,  1993 


BY  MESSENGER 


Stephen  H.  Levin 

Counsel 

Permanent  Subcommittee  on  Investigations 

193  Senate  Russell  Office  Building 

Washington,  D.C.  20510-6262 

Dear  Mr.  Levin: 

After  reviewing  the  Staff  Statement  presented  to  the 
Subcommittee  on  March  10,  1993,  we  would  like  to  make  certain 
clarifications  with  regard  to  parts  of  the  statement  which  relate 
to  the  business  of  Time  Warner  Sports  (HBO  and  TVKO) .  We  would 
greatly  appreciate  your  making  this  letter  a  part  of  the  record. 

On  page  31  of  the  statement  it  states  "Most  television 
networks  contract  with  boxing  promoters  to  put  fights 
together. .. .Time  Warner  Sports  (HBO  and  TVKO) ,  does  things 
differently."  The  facts  do  not  bear  out  this  assertion.  The 
overwhelming  majority  of  HBO  and  TVKO  contracts  are  entered  into 
solely  with  boxing  promoters.  Contrary  with  the  assertion  on  page 
31  that  Time  Warner  Sports  negotiates  with  boxers,  this  has  never 
been  the  case  (except  when  we  contract  with  boxers  to  function  as 
announcers  or  make  personal  appearances  at  trade  functions  on 
behalf  of  HBO  or  TVKO) .  George  Foreman,  Marvin  Hagler,  and  Sugar 
Ray  Leonard  co-signed  contracts  which  HBO  negotiated  with  their 
promotional  representatives  and  not  with  the  fighters  themselves. 
Their  signatures,  evidencing  acceptance  and  agreement  with  the 
terms  of  their  television  contracts  with  HBO,  were  necessitated  by 
the  nature  of  their  relationships  with  their  promoters.  Foreman 
and  Hagler  were  working  with  their  promoter,  Top  Rank,  Inc.,  on  a 
fight-by-fight  basis;  their  promoter  was  not  able  to  bind  them  on 
a  multi-fight  basis  without  their  explicit  agreement.  Similarly, 
Ray  Leonard  chose  to  have  a  lawyer/advisor  handle  his  television 
negotiations,  not  a  promoter.  Thus,  in  these  limited 
circumstances,  it  was  necessary  for  the  boxers  to  sign  the 
contracts.   The  Staff  Statement  states  "Other  television  networks 


Time  Warner  Sports 

1100  Avenue  of  the  Americas,  New  York,  NY  10036  (212)  512-1868 


251 


explained  that  they  generally  contract  with  the  promoter,  who  then 
deals  with  the  boxers.";  this  statement  is  unequivocally  true  with 
respect  to  both  HBO  and  TVKO. 

The  statement  also  suggests  that  HBO  and  TVKO  behave 
differently  than  other  programmers  in  taking  an  active  roll  in 
suggesting  attractive  matchups.  It  is  our  belief  that  all 
programmers  involved  in  telecasting  boxing  attempt  to  arrange  for 
matches  which  they  view  as  having  the  greatest  fan  appeal. 
"Matchmakers"  go  beyond  normal  programming  functions  and  arrange 
for  bout  agreements  with  particular  fighters  and  managers.  We, 
like  other  telecasters  of  boxing,  rely  on  promoters  to  handle  such 
arrangements  and  have  never  functioned  as  "matchmakers". 

The  report  further  asserts  that  Time  Warner  Sports  "enters 
into  multiple  fight  or  so-called  option  contracts  with  boxers...." 
Again,  our  multi-fight  agreements  are  negotiated  with,  and  entered 
into  with,  promoters.  The  term  "option  contracts"  has  a  specific 
meaning  in  boxing.  It  refers  to  contractual  relationships  in  which 
promoters  and/or  managers,  as  partial  consideration  for  entering 
into  a  co-promotion  or  agreeing  to  a  particular  bout,  acquire  a 
continuing  controlling  or  financial  interest  in  future  bouts 
engaged  in  by  the  opposing  fighter  should  he  defeat  their  fighter. 
HBO  and  TVKO  have  never  been  parties  to  such  "option  contracts". 
For  example,  in  the  event  that  Heavyweight  Champion  Riddick  Bowe 
were  to  be  defeated  in  an  HBO  or  TVKO  bout  under  his  promoter's 
present  multifight  deal  with  HBO  and  TVKO,  we  would  have  no  future 
rights  with  respect  to  the  fighter  who  takes  his  title.  We  have 
simply  entered  into  multi-fight  agreements  with  promoters.  These 
agreements  are  television  license  agreements  and  nothing  more. 
While  many  of  our  multi-fight  agreements  have  required  exclusivity, 
these  agreements  have  involved  consecutive  fights  over  a  reasonable 
period  of  time  (i.e.,  establishing  the  type  of  exclusivity  that 
another  programmer  might  have  with  a  particular  sports  team  or 
league) . 

Finally,  while  HBO  and  TVKO  are  clearly  major  players  in  the 
world  of  televised  boxing,  we  are  somewhat  perplexed  by  the 
statement  that  "Time  Warner  Sports,  however,  arguably  comes  closer 
than  any  other  network  to  acting  as  a  promoter."  We  do  not  perform 
traditional  promoter  functions,  do  not  contract  directly  with 
sites,  do  not  enter  into  bout  agreements  with  fighters,  do  not  do 
business  with  ratings  organizations;  we  are  simply  programmers. 
Prior  to  the  establishment  of  TVKO,  we  had  Nevada  and  New  Jersey 
counsel  investigate  this  issue  since  we  had  not  previously  been 
involved  in  pay-per-view  boxing;  we  received  opinions  that  TVKO 
would  not  be  functioning  as  a  promoter  under  Nevada  or  New  Jersey 
law. 

Thank  you  for  your  work  and  the  work  of  the  Subcommittee  in 
attempting  to  improve  the  sport  of  boxing.  We  are  glad  that  we 
have  been  able  to  offer  our  assistance  and  pledge  our  continuing 
cooperation. 

Best  wishes. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Louis  J.  DiBella 


LDB/bc 


252 


Senate  Permaner'  c'  Vgmmittee 


on  Investigates 

OFFICIAL  BOXING  CONTRACT 

***WBC   Welterweight   Championship***  EXHIBIT  #   *•  \  A 


NEVADA    ATHLETIC    COMMISSION 

ARTICLES  OF  AGREEMENT 

22                           November                   91 
THIS  AGREEMENT,  Made  and  entered  into  in  triplicate  this day  of. ,  19 , 

^n       Madison   Square   Garden  Boxing,    Inc. __ ofthe 

City  of. New  York _ ,  State  of. NY 


a  boxing  promoter  duly  licensed  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Nevada,  hereinafter  called  the  Promoter,  and _ 

James    "Buddy"    McGirt  ofthe 

City  of .?.?.?.ntLw-0_9d_ ,  State  of. NY. ,  a  duly  licensed  boxer 

under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Nevada,  License  number... ,  hereinafter  called  the  Boxer,  and 

_ _..of  the  City  of . , 

State  of. ,  a  duly  licensed  manager,  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Nevada, 

License  number ,  hereinafter  called  the  Manager. 

WITNESSETH:     In  consideration  of  the  mutual  covenants  and  agreements  hereinafter  contained,  the  parties  hereto 
hereby  agree  to  and  with  each  other  as  follows: 

,    ^,      t    „  ■.,  L     ■  •     ,  c         Mirage   Hotel 

1 .  That  the  Boxer  will  appear  and  enter  into  a  boxing  contest  at  the  site  location  of. 

Las   Vegas                                                                       .,      .         ..           29  A 
_ _ „. ,  Nevada,  on  the day 

of. ,  19.........  or  on  a  date  to  be  hereafter  agreed  upon,  for i.? —rounds  to  a  decision  with 

Simon  Brown of  the  City  of. Washington  D.C.   , 

State  of. __ _ ,  as  his  opponent,  at  a  weight  of  not  over......... pounds, 

said  weight  to  be  taken  on  the  certified  scales  of  the  Promoter. 

2.  That  the  Promoter  will  pay  the  Boxer  for  such  contest,  and  the  Boxer 'agrees  to  accept  in  full  of  all  claims  and 

demands  for  his  services  and  the  performance  by  him  of  this  contract,  the  sum  of. iiix..h.unrir.£d... twenty.-... 

five   thousand nn||arc  ^625,  000.  00   , 

3  That  ihe  conicsi  shall  be  with  gloves  to  be  furnished  by  the  Promoter  at  its  own  expense,  as  provided  by  chapter  467  of  the  Nevada  Revised  Statutes,  authorizing 
boxing  contests,  and  shall  be  conducted  in  all  respects  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Nevada,  and  the  rules  and  regulations  adopted  by  the  Nevada  Athletic 
Commission,  which  are  hereby  made  a  pan  of  this  agreement;  that  the  referee  of  said  contest  shall  be  duly  licensed  to  act  as  such  by  the  State  of  Nevada,  and  assigned  to  act 
as  referee  by  the  Nevada  Athletic  Commission.  If  the  referee  or  the  Nevada  Athletic  Commission  shall  decide  that  the  Boxer  and  Manager,  or  either  of  them,  did  not  enter 
n  good  faith,  or  the  Boxer  and  Manager,  or  either  of  them,  had  any  collusive  understanding  or  agreement  regarding  the  i< 


that  the  same  should  be  on  an  honest  exhibition  of  skill  on  the  part  of  the  contestants,  or  that  the  Boxer  is  not  honestly  competing  or  did  not  give  an  honest  exhibition 
skill,  or  is  guilty  of  an  act  detrimental  to  the  interest  of  boxing,  it  is  agreed  in  any  of  such  events  that  the  Boxer  shall  not  be  entitled  to  the  compensation  above  named, 
pan  thereof,  unless  so  ordered  by  Ihe  Nevada  Athletic  Commission 

It  is  further  agreed  that  ihe  Promoter  shall  pay  said  compensation  to  the  said  Commission  in  the  event  the  Commission  shall  so  order  upon  any  of  the  above-men 
grounds  The  Commission  shall  thereupon,  in  its  discretion,  make  such  disposition  of  said  purse  as  it  deems  to  the  best  interest  of  legitimate  soon  and  may  forfeit 
Nevada  Athletic  Commission  all  or  any  part  of  compensation  or  order  the  same  or  any  portion  thereof  paid  10  the  Boxer  All  parties  hereto  agree  to  accept  and  be  bound 
decision  of  the  said  Commission  and  such  decision  shall  be  final  and  conclusive  of  the  rights  of  the  parties  thereto. 

4  That  the  Boxer  shall  personally  report  at  the  above-named  fight  location  for  weighing  and  medical  examination,  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and  regulations 
Nevada  Athletic  Commission,  and  shall  report  at  the  site  to  the  director  of  bouts  two  hours  before  the  time  set  for  the  contest 

5.    The  Boxer  agrees  to  appear  when  and  as  directed  by  the  Promoter  at  all  reasonable  times  for  publicity  purposes. 

6     Should  (he  Boxer  desire  the  Manager  be  paid  directly  by  the  Promoter,  deducting  such  amount  from  the  Boxer's  share  of  the  purse: 

(a)  The  Manager  must  be  licensed  by  the  Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission. 

:en  the  Boxer  and  Manager  must  be  on  hie  with  the  Commission: 


(c)  The  amount  paid  to  the  manager 

(d)  The  Boxed  must  specify  and  initial  any  such  » 


Manager's  Share Boxer's  Initials 

t  included  in  the  above  should  be  written  hereat; 


TIME  IS  OF  THE  ESSENCE  OF  THIS  AGREEMENT. 

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  The  parties  hereto  have  hereunto  affixed  their  hands  and  seals,  in  triplicate,  ai 
_ _ ,  Nevada. 

PROMOTER ^.a.d.i..^.-..?5..V..9^f^.°.>C.i.n.?.'_...I..rl£-    Date H/22/91 

By  (Signature) /^^L^^/        ^ /t/*>\fo J  

BOXER  (Signaturelf^Ll^..../^ 

MANAGER  (S\Mme)^./^A^..^S^ir^rrr^ZZ.. Vzte..//./.?~?^$J...^ 

NOTICE  TO  MATCHMAKERi/Every  boxer  MUST  BE  SIGNED  on  one  of  these  Official  Boxing  Contracts.  White  copy  or  this 
contract  MUST  be  submitted  by  weigh  in  time  to  the  Commission. 

Managers  handling  boxers  under  so-called  "verbal  agreements"  cannot  sign  contracts  for  boxers'  appearance  as  "verbal 
agreements"  are  not  recognized  by  the  Commission.  If  a  boxer  has  no  written  contract  with  a  licensed  manager  then  such  boxer  must 
sign  his  own  boxing  contracts. 

WHITE  COPY-Nevada  Athletic  Commission;  YELLOW  COPY-Promoter's  File;  BLUE  COPY-Boxer. 


253 


I 


Jk 


— HJ* 


J 

-2. 

2^ 


1-  J 


i  »  = 
"sSZ 
i  M 
1^1 


C    -    - 

©5c 


254 


JVisciscn  Squars  Garriei. 
Bcxina 


MSC  Communications  Group 
T  ;o  Pennsylvania  Plaza 
New  York.  NY  10121-0091 
212^65-6000 
Fax.  212^65-6010 


November  26,  1991 


Mr.  Chuck  Minker 

Executive  Director 

Nevada  State  Athletic  Commission 

Las  Vegas,  Nevada 

Dear  Mr.  Minker: 

I  respectfully  request  that  checks  to  cover  my  purse 
for  my  bout  against  Simon  Brown  on  November  29th  be 
made  payable  to  Alfred  Certissimo  Inc. 

Thank  you. 

S 


James    "Buddy"    McGirt 


Approved: 


Senate  Permanent  Subcommittee 
on  investigations 

EXHIBIT  #    21  <fc) 


/\  ('PoramotinJ  (^ammiwualinrui  (^imipastu 


255 


Senate  Permanent  Subcommittee 
on  Investigations 

EXHIBIT  #^i 


UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

PERMANENT  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  INVESTIGATIONS 

COMMITTEE  ON  GOVERNMENTAL  AFFAIRS 


IN  RE  THE  MATTERS  OF: 


CORRUPTION  IN  PROFESSIONAL 
BOXING 


AFFIRMATION  OF 
ALFONSE  D'ARCO 


I,  Alfonse  D'Arco,  under  penalties  of  perjury,  declare: 

On  August  23,  1982,  I  was  inducted  into  the  Luchese 
organized  crime  family.   In  May  of  1990  I  was  appointed  acting 
boss  of  the  Luchese  family  by  then  boss,  Vittoria  Amuso,  who  had 
fled  a  federal  indictment. 

In  September  of  1991  I  attended  a  meeting  of  Luchese  members 
in  the  Hotel  Kimberly  in  Manhattan.   At  the  meeting  I  was  under 
the  strong  impression  that  members  or  associates  of  the  Luchese 
family  were  planning  to  kill  me.   I  fled  the  September  meeting 
and,  soon  after,  decided  to  cooperate  with  Federal  authorities  to 
protect  my  family  and  myself.   I  am  currently  in  protected 
Federal  custody. 

As  a  high  ranking  member  of  the  Luchese  crime  family  I  have 
knowledge  of  the  identity  and  activities  of  other  members  and 
associates  of  the  Luchese  family. 

I  am  familiar  with  Andrew  Licari  of  Northern  New  Jersey. 
Licari  is  a  member  of  the  Luchese  family.   Licari  was  brought  in 
by  a  relative  of  Licari' s  and  Luchese  member  Leonard  Pizzolatto. 
Licari  is  involved  in  loan  sharking  and  several  other  businesses. 

I  am  also  familiar  with  Marco  Minuto  and  his  brother  Lenny 
Minuto  of  Dobbs  Ferry,  New  York.   Marco  Minuto  has  associations 
with  several  organized  crime  families.   Marco  Minuto  and  Lenny 
Minuto  are  also  part  of  the  Luchese  crew  run  by  Luchese 
caporegime  Joey  Giampa.   Marco  Minuto  is  involved  with  an  ice 
company  located  in  Hunts  Points  Market,  New  York. 

I  declare  under  penalty  of  perjury  under  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  of  America  that  the  foregoing  is  true  and  correct 
except  as  to  those  matters  alleged  on  information  and  belief  and, 
as  to  those  matters,  I  believe  them  to  be  true. 


Executed  this  / £.   day  of  March,  1993 


Alfonpe  D'Arco 


256 


CO 
LD 
O 

m 


a 


257 


MADISON  SQUARE  GARDEN  CORPORATION 

TWO  PENHBTLVANIA  PLAZA 
NEW  YORK,  NEWYOtK  1 01 21-0091 


eXA^403P 


J£J£|    AL7RZD  CERTI85IMO  IN 
OF 


505394 


NET  AMOUNT 

$40,000.00 


<  WSONBOUAflE  JAHDE^  COflPORATlOfc 


"•OOSOSaSU"'    i:D  ElqOfiJflfl":    SB-"  i  iiq&l?"' 


p 


'&fyM  &fe»  4 


Senate  Permanent  Subcommittee 
on  Investigation 

EXHIBIT  *    3^  Ch> 


258 


Madison  Square  Garden 
Boxing 


MSG  Communications  Group 

Ne*  Vyc  NY  10121-0091 

212-^5-5995 

rax  ?:Z-t65-50W 


Senate  Permanent  Sot  w«WBti« 

or  Jiwes&gatooifc 


Bob  Goooman 

Vice  Preswv  4  MaKimax? 


Al  - 


I  ga 


ve  Stu  the  whole  breakdown  on  the  fight  and  Buddy's  money, 
total  of  $750,000.00  for  the  fight. 


He  will  actually  receive 

We  still  owe  him  $50,000.00. 

His  sanction  fee  to  the  WBC  was  $18,750.00. 

.£iu  training  expenses  that  he  received  were  $75,000.00. 

t  oaid  Stu  the  balance.   $40,000.00  was  in  cash  and  the  remainder 
In  a  check  to  Alfred  Certissimo  Inc.   We  had  Stu  Sign  a  receipt 
for  the  cash. 


Any 


further   Questions,    just   call. 


Bob 


t,~(  ypa/n/nounl  f^pfn/ruinicalior-*  (  nmnarw 


259 


Senate  Petmanent  Subcommittee 
wbc  welterweight  championship  on  Imestigationi 


EXHIBIT  #     52 


BOOT  AGREEMENT  WITH  OPTIONS 


1991      AGREEMENT  dated  this    26    day  of   November , 

t9*_  by  and  between  MADISON  SQUARE  GARDEN  BOXING,  INC.,  a  New 
York  corporation,  with  offices  at  Four  Pennsylvania  Plaza,  New 

York,  NY  10001  ("Promoter"),   James  McGirt ,  having  an 

address  at    195  Suffolk  Avenue .  Brentwood.  NY   11717 __ 

("Boxer")  and    AT  Cer-t-o _t the  manager  of  Boxer,  having 

an  address  at    1?sq  P^j-tpr^nn  PT^nk  Roari.  Saraurus,  NJ 

( "Manager") . 

WITNESSETH 

In  consideration  of  the  mutual  covenants  and  agreements 
herein  contained  the  parties  hereto  agree  as  follows: 

1.  Boxer  will  engage  in,  and  Promoter  will  promote  or 
co-promote,  a  boxing  contest  with  Simon  Brown  ,  or  another 
opponent  designated  by  Promoter  after  consultation  with  Boxer 
("Opponent"),  scheduled  for  twelve  (  13  rounds  to  a 
decision  (the  "Bout").  Boxer  will  weigh-in  for  the  Bout  at  no 
more    than    147  lbs.       The    Bout    will    be    held    at 

the  Mirage  Hotel,  Las  Vegas  on  November  29 ,  19691   or  at 

such  other  place  or  on  such  other  date  as  Promoter  may  "designate 
after  consultation  with  Boxer.  The  Bout  will  be  conducted  in 
conformity  with  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Athletic 
Commission  having  jurisdiction  at  the  location  for  the  Bout,  or 
if  there  is  no  such  commission,  the  New  York  State  Athletic 
Commission  and  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and  regulations  of 
the  world  governing  body,  if  any,  having  jurisdiction  over  the 
Bout,  world  Boxing  Council  Champsionship  Rules. 

2.  Boxer  and  Manager  grant  to  Promoter  (i)  all  rights 
required  to  stage  the  Bout  and  to  sell  tickets  of  admission  to 
the  Bout  to  the  public;  (ii)  the  exclusive  and  unrestricted  right 
to  exploit  the  Bout  worldwide,  in  perpetuity,  through  all  forms 
of  electronic  media  exploitation  now  known  or  hereafter  created, 
including  without  limitation  standard  commercial  or  noncommercial 
over-the-air  television,  basic  or  pay  cable,  pay-per-view,  closed 
circuit  and  other  forms  of  non-standard  television  and  cassette, 
disc  and  other  forms  of  home  exhibition;  and  (iii)  all  other 
rights,  privileges  and  benefits  incident  to  or  arising  out  of  the 
foregoing  and  the  promotion  and  exploitatiion  of  the  Bout, 
including  without  limitation  the  right  to  retain  all  revenues 
therefrom  and  to  obtain  copyrights  or  other  protections 
throughout  the  world  with  respect  thereto. 

3.  Boxer  and  Manager  grant  to  Promoter  the  exclusive 
right  to  use  in  any  and  all  media  the  name,  likeness  and 
biographical  material  of  Boxer,  Manager  and  Boxer's  trainers, 

-1- 


260 


handlers  and  seconds,  for  the  purpose  of  advertising,  promoting 
and  merchandising  the  Bout,  including  without  limitation  the 
distribution  or  sale  of  souvenir  programs  in  connection  with  the 
Bout.  The  Promoter  shall  further  have  the  right  to  use  the  name 
of  Boxer,  his  photograph  and  other  likeness  on  commercial  and 
merchandising  tie-ups  and  advertisements,  banners,  buttons, 
posters,  souvenir  items  and  all  similar  products  in  connection 
with  the  Bout.  In  no  event  shall  any  such  name,  likeness  or 
biographical  material  be  used  as  a  direct  endorsement  of  any 
commercial  product  or  service. 

4.  As  full  consideration  for  all  of  the  rights  herein 
granted  to  Promoter  and  for  the  complete  performance  by  Boxer 
and  Manager  of  their  obligations  provided  for  herein.  Promoter 

agrees  to  pay  Boxer  the  sum  of  Seven  hundred  thousand* 

($700, 000. 00)  Dollars  upon  completion  of  the  Bout.  Promoter 
shall  also  provide  at  no  cost  to  Boxer,  round  trip  transportation 

from  Boxer's  home  city  to  the  site  of  the  Bout  for   seven 

(  7)  persons  (including  Boxer)  as  well  as   seven 1 7  ) 

hotel  rooms  and  a  reasonable  food  allowance  for  such  persons  (and 
training  facilities,  if  appropriate)  for  the  number  of  days 
designated  by  Promoter.   Promoter  will  further  provide  Boxer  with 

-_-------------  I )  complimentary  tickets  to  the  Bout,  which 

tickets  may  not  ~b"e  sold,  bartered  or  otherwise  transfered  by 
Boxer  for  any  consideration  whatsoever. 

5.  Boxer  will  arrive  at  the  site  of  the  Bout  at  least 
twenty-one   (  2])  days  prior  to  the  date  of  the  Bout,  if  so 

requested  by  Promoter. 

6.  Boxer  and  Manager  agree  that  they  will  cooperate 
and  assist  in  the  publicizing,  advertising  and  promoting  of  the 
Bout,  and  that  they  will  appear  at  and  participate  in  a 
reasonable  number  of  joint  or  separate  press  conferences, 
interviews  and  other  publicity  or  exploitation  appearances  and 
activities  (any  and  all  of  which  may  be  telecast,  broadcast, 
cablecast  or  otherwise  recorded),  at  times  and  places  designated 
by  Promoter  upon  reasonable  notice  to  Manager. 

7.  (a)  Boxer  and  Manager  represent,  warrant  and 
agree  that  each  is  free  to  enter  into  this  Agreement  and  that 
neither  one  has  entered  or  will  enter  into  any  contract  or 
agreement  in  conflict  with  the  provisions  hereof  or  which 
purports  to  grant  to  another  similar  or  conflicting  rights  or 
which  would  or  might  interfere  with  the  full  and  complete 
performance  by  Boxer  and  Manager  of  their  respective  obligations 
hereunder  or  the  free  and  unimpaired  exercise  by  Promoter  of  any 
of  the  rights  herein  granted  to  it.  Boxer  and  Manager  also 
represent  that  there  are  no  pending  claims  or  litigations 
affecting  Boxer  or  Manager  which  would  or  might  interfere  with 
the  full  and  complete  exercise  or  enjoyment  by  Promoter  of  any 
rights  granted  hereunder. 

(b)   Boxer  and  Manager  further  represent,  warrant 

*Six  hundred  twenty  five  thousand  dollars  plus  seventy  five  thousand 
for  training  expenses.        -2- 


261 


and  agree  that  Boxer  shall  not  perform  in  a  boxing  contest  or 
other  athletic  contest  between  the  date  hereof  and  the  date  of 
the  Bout. 

(c)  Boxer  and  Manager  further  represent,  warrant 
and  agree  that  no  advertising  or  promotional  material  will  appear 
on  their  clothing  or  the  clothing  of  any  member  of  their 
entourage  worn  in  connection  with  the  Bout,  other  than  the  name 
of  the  manufacturer  thereof  as  may  normally  appear  on  such 
clothing,  without  the  prior  written  approval  of  Promoter. 

B.  Boxer  and  Manager  hereby  acknowledge  and  agree  that 
the  services  to  be  rendered  or  furnished  by  Boxer  and  the  rights 
granted  to  Promoter  hereunder  are  of  a  special,  unique,  unusual 
and  extraordinary  character,  giving  them  peculiar  value,  the  loss 
of  which  cannot  be  reasonably  or  adequately  compensated  in 
damages  in  an  action  at  law  and  would  cause  Promoter 
irreparabledamage  and  injury.  Boxer  and  Manager,  therefore, 
agree  that  Promoter  shall  be  entitled  to  injunctive  or  other 
equitable  relief  to  prevent  any  breach  or  default  hereunder, 
which  shall  be  in  addition  to  and  without  prejudice  to  any  other 
fights  or  remedies  Promoter  may  have  in  such  event. 

9.  Promoter  shall  have  the  right  at  its  election  to 
obtain  life  or  other  insurance  upon  Boxer  in  such  amounts  as  it 
may  determine  at  its  cost  and  expense,  including,  but  not  limited 
to,  insurance  against  the  failure  of  Boxer  to  appear  and  to 
participate  in  the  Bout;  and  neither  Boxer  nor  Manager  shall  have 
any  right,  title  or  interest  in  such  insurance.  Boxer  and 
Manager  agree  to  cooperate  and  assist  in  Promoter's  obtaining 
such  insurance,  including  submitting  to  such  physical  or  other 
examinations  of  Boxer  as  may  be  required  to  obtain  such 
insurance. 

10.  In  the  event  the  Bout  is  to  be  commercially 
telecast  or  cablecast,  Boxer  and  Manager  agree  that  each  will 
comply  (and  that  they  will  cause  all  members  of  Boxer's  entourage 
to  comply)  with  all  the  terms  and  conditions  for  which  compliance 
is  required  by  the  network  responsible  for  such  telecast  or 
cablecast.  Promoter  agrees  to  provide  Boxer  and  Manager  with 
all  such  terms  and  conditions  of  the  applicable  network  as  soon 
as  is  reasonably  practicable  prior  to  the  Bout. 

11.  Notwithstanding  anything  in  this  Agreement  to  the 
contrary,  if  the  Bout  is  delayed  or  prevented  by  reason  of  any 
act  of  God,  fire,  flood,  public  disaster,  strike  or  other  labor 
difficulties,  refusal  or  inability  of  any  fighter  (including, but 
not  limited  to,  Boxer  and/or  his  opponent)  for  any  reason 
whatsoever  (including,  but  not  limited  to,  a  defeat  or  other 
value-lessening  event  causing  Promoter  to  terminate  such 
fighter's  contract)  to  participate  in  a  boxing  contest  included 
on  the  fight  card  of  which  the  Bout  is  a  part,  which  results  in 
the  cancellation  of  the  card  or  otherwise  prevents  the  Bout,  or 
any  other  cause,  whether  of  a  similar  or  different  nature,  beyond 

-3- 


262 


the  reasonable  control  of  Promoter,  including  without  limitation 
termination  or  cancellation  of  the  site  agreement  or  the 
agreement  for  the  broadcast  or  cablecast  of  the  Bout,  as  the  case 
may  be,  for  reasons  out  of  the  reasonable  control  of  Promoter, 
then  Promoter  shall  not  be  liable  to  Boxer  therefor,  and  Promoter 
may,  but  shall  not  be  obligated  to,  (i)  postpone  or  reschedule 
the  Bout  so  delayed  to  a  date  within  six  (6)  weeks  of  the  date  on 
which  the  Bout  was  originally  scheduled  or  such  longer  period  as 
Boxer  and  Promoter  may  agree  upon,  (ii)  in  the  event  the  Opponent 
in  the  Bout  refuses  or  is  unable  to  participate  in  same,  to 
substitute  another  opponent,  or  (iii)  cancel  the  Bout  and 
terminate  this  Agreement  in  which  event  Promoter  shall  have  no 
further  liability  or  obligation  to  Boxer  with  respect  to  the 
Bout.  Nothing  in  this  Paragraph  shall  be  deemed  to  limit  the 
liability  of  Boxer  in  the  event  of  his  refusal  to  fight  other 
than  for  reasons  of  injury  or  illness  which  prevents  him  from 
fighting,  as  certified  by  a  licensed  physician  authorized  to  so 
certify  by  the  athletic  commission  having  jurisdiction  over  the 
Bout. 

12.   (a)    Boxer  irrevocably  grants  to  Promoter  the 
right  (the  "Option")  to  secure,  arrange  and  promote  Boxer's  next 

five ^__  (_£)  professional  boxing  contests   following 

the  Bout  (hereinafter  referred  to  individually  as  the  "Additional 
Bout",  and  collectively  as  the  "Additional  Bouts")  each  such 

Option  to  be  exercisable  at  any  time  within   two   [2 ) 

months  from  the  date  of  Boxer's  last  Bout  or  Additional  Bout,  as 
the  case  may  be  (the  "Option  Period"),  by  written  notice  to 
Boxer.  Each  of  the  Additional  Bouts,  if  any,  with  respect  to 
which  Promoter  has  exercised  its  Option  shall  be  conducted 
pursuant  to  the  terms  and  conditions  set  forth  in  this  Agreement 
and  each  of  the  parties  hereto  shall  have  all  of  the  rights  and 
obligations  with  respect  to  the  Additional  Bouts  as  they  have 
with  respect  to  the  Bout.  As  soon  as  reasonably  practicable 
following  notice  of  exercise  of  an  Option,  Promoter  shall  notify 
Boxer  of  the  location  and  date  of  such  Additional  Bout  (which 

date  shall  not  be  more  than     four     (J )  months  from  the 

date  of  the  prior  Bout)  and  the  opposing  fighter  and,  will  consult 
with  Boxer  with  respect  thereto.  Boxer  represents,  warrants  and 
agrees  that  he  shall  not  perform  in  a  boxing  contest  or  other 
athletic  contest  during  any  Option  Period  or  prior  to  the 
occurrence  of  an  Additional  Bout  if  Promoter  has  exercised  its 
Option  with  respect  to  such  Additional  Bout. 

(b)  In  consideration  for  the  grant  of  such 
Options,  Promoter  will  use  its  reasonable  efforts  to  arrange  each 
Additional  Bout  during  the  applicable  Option  Period. 

(c)  In  the  event  that  Promoter  exercises  one  or 
more  of  the  Options,  Promoter  shall  pay  Boxer,  on  condition  that 
Boxer  fully  and  completely  performs  all  of  the  services  required 
to  be  performed  by  Boxer  hereunder  and  as  full  consideration  for 
such  services  and  the  rights  granted  hereunder,  as  follows: 


-4- 


263 


(i)  for  the  first  Additional  Bout,  if  any,  a 
sum   determined   by   Promoter   but   in   no   event   less   than 

two  hundred  fifty  «-hniisanti ($?sn.nnn  )   Dollars,   plus 

such  other  remuneration  and  expense  allowances  as  may  be  provided 
for  in  Schedule  A; 

(ii)  for  the  second  Additional  Bout,  if  any, 
a   sum  determined   by  Promoter   but   in   no  event   less   than 

two  hundred  fifty  thousand  — ($250,000  )   Dollars,   plus 

such  other  remuneration  and  expense  allowances  as  may  be  provided 
for  in  Schedule  A;  and 

(iii)  for  the  third  Additional  Bout,  if  any, 
a   sum   determined   by   Promoter   but   in   no  event   less   than 

two  hundred  fifty  thousand  ($250,000  )   Dollars,   plus 

such  other  remuneration  and  expense  allowances  as  may  be  provided 
for  in  Schedule  A. 

(i&)    &  (v)  as  in  i,  ii,  and  iii  above  for  fourth  and  fifth  additional  bout 

(d)  In  the  event  that  Promoter  does  not  exercise 
the  next  available  Option  for  an  Additional  Bout  during  the 
applicable  Option  Period  pursuant  hereto.  Boxer  shall  be  free  to 
accept  a  third  party  offer  and  engage  in  a  boxing  contest 
following  such  Option  Period  and  neither  Promoter,  on  the  one 
hand,  nor  Boxer  and  Manager,  on  the  other,  shall  have  any  further 
rights  or  obligations  to  the  other  with  respect  to  such 
Additional  Bout. 

(e)  Notwithstanding  Promoter's  election  not  to 
exercise  one  of  its  Options  within  the  applicable  Option  Period, 
this  Agreement  and  any  additional  Options  held  by  Promoter  for 
subsequent  Additional  Bouts  shall  continue  in  full  force  and 
effect  during  subsequent  Option  Periods. 

13.  In  the  event  that  Boxer,  or  the  Opponent,  asserts 
that  he  is  disabled,  due  to  an  injury  or  sickness,  from  appearing 
in  any  of  the  Additional  Bouts,  Promoter  may  extend  the  Option 
Period  for  a  period  of  time  equal  to  the  period  of  such 
disability.  Any  dispute  between  the  parties  relating  to  the  term 
of  such  disability  shall  be  decided  by  and  subject  to  the  rules 
of  the  applicable  state  athletic  commission  or,  in  the  absence  of 
such  commission,  by  the  New  York  State  Athletic  Commission. 

14.  Each  of  the  parties  hereto  agrees  to  execute  and 
deliver  any  and  all  further  documents  necessary  to  carry  out  the 
purposes  hereof,  including  without  limitation  any  standard  form 
contracts  required  by  the  applicable  athletic  commission. 

15  All  notices,  requests,  demands  and  other 
communications  which  are  required  or  may  be  given  pursuant  hereto 
shall  be  in  writing  and  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  duly  given 
on  the  date  received  if  delivered  personally  or  sent  by 
registered  or  certified  mail,  telex  or  cable,  postage  prepaid,  to 
the  parties  at  the  addresses  and  set  forth  in  this  Agreement  (or 
at  such  other  address  as  a  party  may  designate  by  notice  pursuant 

-5- 


264 


to  this  Paragraph)  and,  if  to  HSG,  with  a  copy  to:  Madison  Square 
Garden  Corporation,  Two  Pennsylvania  Plaza,  New  York,  New  York 
10121-0091,  Attention:  General  Counsel.  Any  notices  requests, 
demands  or  other  communications  which  are  required  or  may  be 
given  to  Boxer  hereunder  may  instead  be  given  to  Manager  unless 
Boxer  specifically  requests  otherwise  in  writing  to  MSG. 

16.  This  Agreement  shall  be  construed  under  the 
internal  law  of  the  State  of  New  York,  applicable  to  agreements 
fully  executed  and  to  be  performed  therein. 

17.  Nothing  contained  in  this  Agreement  shall  be 
deemed  to  constitute  a  partnership  or  joint  venture  between  us  or 
constitute  Promoter  as  your  agent  or  you  as  Promoter's  agent  nor 
shall  anything  in  this  Agreement  be  construed  to  constitute  you 
as  an  employee  of  Promoter,  and  you  hereby  represent  and  warrant 
to  Promoter  that  you  are  and  will  remain  an  independent 
contractor. 

18.  Neither  Boxer  nor  Manager  shall  have  the  right  to 
assign  or  otherwise  transfer  their  rights  or  obligations  under 
this  Agreement.  Promoter  shall  have  the  absolute  right  to 
assign,  license,  sublicense  or  otherwise  transfer  any  of  its 
rights  or  obligations  hereunder  to  any  person  or  entity 
whatsoever. 

19.  This  Agreement  sets  forth  the  entire  agreement 
between  the  parties  with  respect  to  the  subject  mater  hereof  and 
supersedes  and  replaces  all  prior  and  contemporaneous  warranties, 
representations  and  agreements,  whether  written  or  oral,  with 
respect  thereto  and  may  not  be  amended  or  modified  except  in  a 
writing  executed  by  the  party  to  be  charged  therewith. 

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  hereto  have  executed 
this  Agreement  on  the  date  and  year  first  above  written. 


MADISON  SQUARE  GARDEN  BOXING,  INC. 


Nam*/ of  B'ox^r 


-6- 


ame  of  Manager 


265 


Senate  J*«rmaiwot  Subcommittee 
on 


EXHIBIT  #  W 


266 


BOSTON  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 


3  9999  05706  1846 

Oregon 


Senate  Permanent  Subcommittee 
on  Investigations 

EXHIBIT  #__HH_ 


BOXING      AMD 
WRESTLING 


COMMISSION 


May  4,  1993 


Mr.  Stephen  H.  Levin 

Staff  Counsel  -  U.S.  Senate 

Permanent  Sub-Committee  on  Investigations 

Rm  193  -  Russell  Senate  Office  Building 

Washington,  D.C.  20510 


RE: 


Correction  on  S.  HRG  102-1013.  Aug  11,12  1992 
Corruption  In  Professional  Boxing 


Dear  Steve, 

On  page  190,  2nd  paragraph  of  above  referenced  publication  there  appears 
incorrect  information  regarding  the  regulation  of  Boxing  in  the  State  of  Oregon. 

The  Oregon  State  Boxing  and  Wrestling  Commission  was  created  by  the 
Legislature  in  1987,  and  remains  the  sole  regulator  of  those  activities  within  the 
State.  Prior  to  1987  there  existed  several  municipal  commissions  (including 
Portland). 

We  regulate  Boxing,  at  least  in  our  opinion,  the  way  it  should  be  regulated, 
consequently  we  have  little  activity.  It  is  said  by  some  in  the  industry  the  "you 
cannot  work  with  us.  I  think  that  translates  to,  "you  cannot  work  the  Oregon 
Commission." 


Bruce  Anderson 
Executive  Director 

BA:jh 


9450  SW  Commerce  Circle 
Suite  31 1 
PO  Box  901 
Wilsonvilie,  OR  97070 
(503)  682-0582 
FAX  (503)  682-275i 


o 


65-875    (276) 


ISBN    0-16-041441-5 


90000 


780160"4 


4411